Opinion What UP government’s attempt to withdraw cases against Akhlaq case accused tells us about state’s bias
Whether this case ends in genuine accountability will determine not only the fate of one family, but the credibility of India’s constitutional promise of unbiased justice
The struggle for justice for Akhlaq has exposed both judicial and executive faultlines (Special arrangement) By Ganesh Gaigouria
The lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq in Dadri, Uttar Pradesh, in September 2015 remains one of the most disturbing symbols of the politics of cow vigilantism in the recent past. Akhlaq, a 50-year-old Muslim man, was dragged out of his home by a mob after an announcement from a local temple alleged that he had slaughtered a cow and stored beef in his refrigerator. He was beaten to death while his son, Danish, was left grievously injured. The crime was a product of an atmosphere of hatred in which rumours, religious symbolism, and political sanction merged into lethal force. Nearly a decade later, the struggle for justice for Akhlaq has exposed both judicial and executive faultlines.
In a move that shocked legal observers and civil rights groups, the Uttar Pradesh government sought to withdraw the prosecution against the accused by invoking Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The state argued that there were inconsistencies in witness statements, a lack of prior enmity between the victim and the accused, and insufficient recovery of weapons. The trial court’s rejection of the government’s plea to withdraw charges on December 23 is therefore a crucial, if belated, reaffirmation of the rule of law. The court found no legal justification for abandoning prosecution in a case involving murder and communal violence, and directed that the trial proceed expeditiously, with daily hearings and protection of witnesses. This decision stands in sharp contrast to the conduct of the state, which appeared more invested in shielding the accused than in securing justice for the victim’s family. While the court’s order restores some faith in judicial independence, it also highlights how precarious justice becomes when executive power is exercised in a biased manner.
Why does the state show such solicitude in cases involving accused persons aligned with majoritarian sentiment, while countless individuals from marginalised communities languish in jail for years without trial under far weaker evidence? For instance, activists like Umar Khalid and others have been incarcerated for years without trial. The contrast is stark with the 2018 Unnao rape case, where a BJP MLA was accused, and initial police action was delayed despite public allegations, and the Lakhimpur Kheri violence of 2021, in which protesters were allegedly mowed down by a vehicle linked to the son of a Union minister. In these matters, investigations moved slowly, accountability came only after national outrage, and the state appeared reluctant to act decisively against the accused. This reveals a troubling truth: The state is no longer acting as a neutral prosecutor.
The conduct of the Uttar Pradesh government in the Akhlaq case must be viewed within this broader context of a political order. Cow protection has been aggressively mobilised as a cultural and electoral tool, transforming vigilante violence into a form of ideological enforcement. In such an environment, Muslim victims are routinely portrayed as suspects rather than citizens deserving of protection. The defence’s arguments, now mirrored by the state, as reported in this newspaper, rely heavily on technicalities while ignoring the social reality of mob violence. Lynching is rarely accompanied by neat forensic trails or individualised intent; it thrives on collective aggression, fear, and public sanction. To demand the same evidentiary neatness as an ordinary crime is to misunderstand — or deliberately obscure — the nature of hate violence. By adopting the defence’s reasoning, the state effectively delegitimised the lived experience of the victim’s family and the broader pattern of cow-related lynchings.
For India to reclaim secularism and equality before law, justice in cases like Akhlaq’s must be pursued without hesitation or prejudice. The present moment offers an opportunity for the legal system to correct course. Whether this case ends in genuine accountability will determine not only the fate of one family, but the credibility of India’s constitutional promise of unbiased justice. Thus, in a true sense, we should also move beyond procedural legality and consider human civility. A renowned lawyer, Clarence Darrow, in defence of a young Black man, Henry Sweet, in a case of mob violence, stated, “I would like to see a time when man loves his fellow-man, and forgets his colour or his creed……the last analysis is, what has man done? — and not what has the law done?”
The writer is visiting faculty at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru
Share
