Lynching is an intentional extrajudicial killing of a person by a group of people. When an uncontrolled group of people kills a suspected person or kills him in some other way, then it is called Mob Lynching. It is mostly used to characterize informal public executions by a mob in order to punish a suspected wrongdoer or to threaten a group. It is believed to be an act of terrorism and punishable by law. Occurrences of lynching and similar gang violent behaviour can be observed in all society.

It is a dangerous form of informal group social control such as tarring and feathering, riding the rail, skimming on, and charivari, and often performed with the public display for maximum pressure. Over the past few years, India has been astounded by increasing number of unofficial public executions or extrajudicial violence commonly known as “Mob Lynching”.

However, recently it has taken the form of an outbreak potent enough to cause a downfall in our law and order system. It has also resulted in an increased sense of insecurity among the public. In recent years, there have been many such instances in many states of India, especially in Rajasthan, western Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar etc.

The incidents of mobs lynching were carried out at a large scale in the form of the mass killing of the people, who are called as cattle killers by the mob of so-called cow-guards commonly called as ‘go-rakshak'. But in states like Bihar and Jharkhand, there were instances where a woman was beaten brutally, which resulted in her death by a group of people by calling her a witch and in some states as some were killed by the crowd in the name of love jihad.

Whatsoever the reason, a group of people does not have the right to take law into their own hands. The right to punish a wrongdoer has been given to the courts in democracy and that too after the conviction of the person. If a person or group is allowed to punish an individual ,who is or seems to be suspected to be a wrongdoer, without giving the chance to be heard, then it is like social anarchy, which, if permitted then every person will think himself as a judge and this will not only give rise to social problems but will also hinder the law and order, which will never be in the interest of a person or in the interest of the society.

The very existence of incidents like mob lynching questions the authority of the state as well as ruin the faith in the justice system. Such a dangerous violent reaction to conflict of any nature weakens the structure and development of a liberal country like India.

Observation
Two dairy operators, Rakbar Khan in July 2018 and Pahlu Khan in April 2017 were killed by using a mob of so-called go-rakshaks of Rajasthan, in suspicion that they're animal smugglers and promote cow meat by killing cows. Same incidents passed off in May 2018 in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh and on September 28, 2015, in Uttar Pradesh and on March 18, 2016, in Latehar of Jharkhand.

There was mob lynching which occurred on March 5, 2015, in Nagaland, this incident showed another picture of the society. In this incident, a lot of people broke into Dimapur Central Jail and killed Farid Khan, a prisoner under trial. It was alleged that he is a rapist and is a risk for society. And there has been an incident in Jharkhand in which the mob had beaten up a woman and killed her believing that she was a devil. 

Undoubtedly, the existence of mob lynching is dangerous for society and it ought to be controlled at any cost. But seeing the problem of mob lynching from the Hindu Muslim viewpoint through political events is even deadlier and dangerous than a mob lynching. Any crime is a crime and it isn't always a Hindu crime or a Muslim crime.

In order to stop this situation, the apex court issued an instantaneous strict guideline against the persons or groups of people participated in the mob lynching and directed to investigate the matter after filing a FIR under section 153B and other proper sections of Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court had passed a series of corrective and preventive measures and remedies in the landmark case of Tehseen S.Poonawalla v. Union of India and Ors. Ms Jaising argued that the incidents of lynching went beyond the description of law and order.

At the equal time, Section 15 of the Karnataka Govadh Prevention & Protection Act, 1964, Section thirteen of the Maharashtra Animal Protection Act, and Section 12 of Gujarat Animal Protection Act, 1954 has been challenged to be stated as unconstitutional as these provisions are supportive of the incidents like mob lynching.

The complete bench, whilst issuing directions, has resorted to numerous helping precedents and comments that the instances which has been created and that the problems that have arisen need to be absolutely curbed or stopped immediately. It is the obligation of the states to see that no private character or any core organization take the law into its own hands. In case of violation of regulation, anybody has the right to provide this statistic to the police.

Any person who has been registered for any crime has the right to take proper and activate inquiry and trial beneath the constitutional and statutory regulation of the land. And after that, the accused might be held guilty or innocent on the basis of the evidence produced for the duration of the trial and criminal ideas applicable at the matter. No investigation, trial or punishment must be completed by a mob or any religious group. It needs to be done only through the right judicial processes. No individual has the right to be the head of the judiciary except judge. It is the responsibility of the judiciary and laws existing in the country to stop unwanted incidents and crimes.

It is a joint obligation of both central and state government to prevent violence in any part of the nation through their corporation and administration. If the officer neglects to maintain the gadget or law and order, then prison action must be delivered in opposition to him. The complete bench in addition re-communicated that the lynching way awarding death sentence to a person without any criminal reasoning which is against the principles of rule of law and additionally a disrespect to the values of the Constitution.

The present system of governance can neither allow lynching carried out via the out of control mob nor could permit the abetment made with the aid of them to purpose barbaric violence and no longer even can permit such adverse results of mob lynching. Mob vigilantism and mob violence ought to be curbed with the aid of the government by using stern action. Every citizen has the right to get the safety of the law in the United States and the law has never empowered any citizen to become regulation himself.

There is no disagreement in this regard that the act of mob lynching is illegal and immoral. There is no want to say extra after discussing the above-referred to observations and communications of the Supreme Court at the violence or mob lynching, and there's no other alternative except to put in force the directions or tips given through the Supreme Court to manipulate them.

Rajasthan Protection from Lynching Bill, 2019 has been introduced in continuance of the approvals made by the apex court in Tahseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India. And if it gets passed, Rajasthan will become the second State after Manipur to have a law in criminalising mob lynching as a special offence, in addition to other offences under the Indian Penal Code. The bill follows the Apex Court's recommendations in sanctioning the setting up of special courts, the appointment of a dedicated nodal officer, and delivering justice. Yet, its scope is more comprehensive as it not only criminalises the acts of mob lynching and promotion of an ‘aggressive environment' but also provides relief, legal aid, compensation and rehabilitation.

The Bill describes lynching as an act or series of acts of violence or aiding, abetting or attempting an act of violence, whether impulsive or planned, by a mob on the grounds of religion, caste, sex, place of birth, language, dietary practices, sexual orientation, political association and ethnicity. Though widespread in content, the bill does not cover all cases of offences. Noticeably, the bill says that the police officers and the district magistrates have to take preventive measures. Though, not similar to the law on mob lynching in Manipur, it does not recommend any punishment for the negligence of duty.

Further, some of the requirements of bill might attract legal inspection. There is also another provision under Section 8(c) of the Bill says that whoever commits an act of lynching, where the act leads to the death of the victim, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine not be less than ₹1,00,000 and which may extend to ₹5,00,000. As regards condemning, this provision completely withdraws the judiciary of any amount of discretion.

The Indian government also had to publish an advisory to the state and union territories of the country. But, the next hearing on the same subject is still pending in the Supreme Court and it will not be proper to give a statement or make any ultimate decision on the matter until the court produces a final decision. However, the next hearing of the problem is still pending inside the Supreme Court and it will not be proper to comment or make any final conclusion on the problem until the courtroom makes a very last decision. Yet the severity of Mob Lynching is awful and so cruel to the society that it's miles essential to do whatever may be finished in order to manage it.

Yet the seriousness of mob lynching is horrible and so cruel to the society that it is necessary to do no matter what can be done in order to control it. The recent guidelines of the Supreme Court are the consequence of this thought and should be welcomed.

It is the primary duty of a state to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country. The Supreme Court indicated that administration of law is granted to the law enforcing agencies and no one is allowed to take law into their own hands on the name of his narrow spirit of judgment or traditions. The important issues which required the principal dealing of the Supreme Court were the problems leading to cow vigilantism and other incidents of lynching targeting violence under the name of self-believed protectors of law.

Conclusion
The ferocious case of mob lynching violates the law lay down by our constitution and completely weakens the fundamental law concepts like ‘fair trial' and ‘innocent until proven guilty'.  As the Supreme Court observed, lack of interest of passer-by and silence of the spectators of the crime scene combined with ineffective legislation and even inadequate implementation, facilitates this threat to show the entire country in a state of anarchy and lawlessness. The only solution to this inhumane crime is to adopt a zero-tolerance attitude towards this crime combined with rapid legislation and timely implementation of law.

Anyway, the law should not be allowed to be taken in one's hand. Then we all have to return to the ancient tribal punishment system. It is one's social moral and national responsibility living in the society, that instead of blindly joining the crowd without knowing the intentions of the crowd, it's better to avoid it. Though the Government has issued advisory without any delay, to guarantee the fulfilment of the directions given by the court.

Each state has been asked to confirm agreement with the directions given by the Supreme Court, along with other directives. And the government is also establishing suitable laws. Still, this is not all responsibility of the central government or the state governments. It is also a duty of each person living in the society by the constitution, to create a sense of harmony and fraternity among all the citizens of India, who will not discriminate on the basis of religion, language, class and state, and will be compassionate to everyone.