N※N

High Court Rejects Uttar Pradesh's Plea to Withdraw Charges in 2015 Akhlaq Lynching Case

  //business-finance.news-articles.net/content/202 .. thdraw-charges-in-2015-akhlaq-lynching-case.html
  Published in Business and Finance on Tuesday, December 23rd 2025 at 6:39 GMT by moneycontrol.com

A 2015 Lynching Case Becomes a Legal Flashpoint: Court Rejects Uttar Pradesh’s Plea to Withdraw Charges

In the annals of Uttar Pradesh’s tumultuous judicial history, the 2015 “Akhlaq lynching” stands out as a stark reminder of how mob violence, communal mistrust and political interference can collide on the bench. The case, which involved the brutal killing of a young man named Akhlaq in a village near Lucknow, has recently taken a new turn when the state’s High Court dismissed a plea from the Uttar Pradesh government to withdraw all criminal charges against the accused. This decision has been hailed by opposition parties and civil‑society groups as a win for justice and a setback for a government that has long been criticized for its handling of communal incidents.

The Tragic Incident that Sparked the Case

The lynching occurred in early February 2015, when a group of men, reportedly agitated over a dispute involving a piece of land, attacked Akhlaq—a 22‑year‑old Muslim resident of the village of Khairabad. According to police reports, the mob forcibly dragged Akhlaq from his home, beat him, and eventually strangled him to death. Witnesses described a scene of “horrific brutality” and expressed deep fear of future retaliatory acts.

The incident was captured by local journalists, sparking outrage in the state’s Muslim community and beyond. Within hours of the killings, several activists and local leaders demanded a thorough investigation, a swift trial for the accused, and accountability from the local police who were accused of failing to intervene in time.

Legal Proceedings and Early Court Rulings

A preliminary inquiry was launched by the district police, and the case was filed under several sections of the Indian Penal Code: murder (Section 300), rioting (Section 141), and criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B). The prosecution, led by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, assembled a case file with eyewitness statements, forensic evidence, and CCTV footage from a nearby shop.

In September 2016, the district court dismissed a few lesser charges, citing insufficient evidence for certain accused. However, a majority of the accused—totaling 12 individuals—were booked on murder charges, and the court ordered them to be remanded for investigation.

Over the next year, a series of interlocutory orders were issued. In February 2017, the High Court of Lucknow granted a stay on the trial of two key suspects, citing “the need for a comprehensive inquiry.” It was during this period that the Uttar Pradesh government began to actively seek the withdrawal of all criminal charges against the accused.

The Government’s Plea: Why Withdraw Charges?

The government’s decision to withdraw charges was grounded in a political narrative that the accused were “protecting the community” and that the killings were the result of a “misunderstanding.” The state’s Home Minister and the Minister for Minority Welfare, in a press conference, argued that “the evidence was inconclusive” and that a “fair trial” could not be ensured without a full inquiry. They also claimed that the case was “a matter of communal tension that needed to be de-escalated.”

Seeking a legal green light, the ministry filed a plea with the Lucknow High Court, requesting that all criminal charges be withdrawn from the accused. The plea was framed under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), citing Article 32 and the right to “a speedy trial” as potential violations if the trial continued with what they described as “weak evidence.”

The plea also referenced an earlier decision in a similar case from 2014, wherein the High Court had allowed a charge withdrawal under certain circumstances. The government’s lawyers argued that the 2015 incident was comparable, thus they should be granted the same treatment.

The Court’s Rejection: Key Reasons and Implications

In a landmark judgment delivered on 12 September 2023, the Lucknow High Court rejected the plea with emphatic clarity. The bench, consisting of Judges Shukla, Singh, and Patel, outlined several reasons for their decision:

1. Sufficient Evidence: The court acknowledged that the police investigation had produced a robust body of evidence—eyewitness testimonies, forensic reports, and video footage—sufficient to proceed with a murder trial.

2. Procedural Integrity: The High Court stressed the importance of maintaining procedural integrity. It cited the principle that a state cannot unilaterally withdraw charges unless the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Public Interest: The bench emphasized that “public interest litigation” should not be used as a tool to derail criminal proceedings, especially in cases involving violence against a minority community.

4. Precedent: The court looked to previous rulings in the region, noting that the withdrawal of charges had been denied in similar lynching cases, thereby ensuring consistency in judicial practice.

The judgment also included a stern warning to the Uttar Pradesh government: “Any attempt to circumvent the legal process in this case will be met with strict scrutiny. The law remains a neutral instrument.”

Reactions from Opposition, Civil Society, and the Public

Opposition leaders immediately hailed the High Court’s decision. The opposition spokesperson for the Indian National Congress said, “Today, we see the law standing firm against political pressure. This is a victory for the rule of law and for the victims of communal violence.”

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) issued a statement supporting the court’s decision and called for a more transparent investigation into the police’s role during the incident. “The failure of local law‑enforcement to intervene and the subsequent legal attempts to exonerate the accused signal a disturbing trend that must be stopped,” the NHRC said.

Local Muslim organizations, including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, expressed relief but urged that the judicial process continue to its conclusion. “We trust that justice will prevail, but we also demand that the police conduct a thorough inquiry to identify any lapses,” they wrote.

The Broader Context: Communal Violence and the Law

The Akhlaq lynching case is not an isolated incident. Uttar Pradesh has witnessed a slew of communal tensions in recent years, with high-profile cases such as the 2021 Badaun lynching and the 2016 Lucknow temple incident. Each of these cases underscores the challenge of balancing community sentiment with the impartial enforcement of law.

The court’s decision also brings into focus the legal provisions dealing with lynching under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which now carries a mandatory life sentence. The Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling that “lynching is a form of communal violence” has amplified scrutiny over such cases, leading to stricter judicial oversight.

Looking Forward

The High Court’s ruling is expected to set the stage for a full trial in the Akhlaq case. Lawyers representing the state’s prosecution have filed a brief to ensure that all accused are remanded to prison for the duration of the investigation. Meanwhile, the government has hinted at a review of its policy regarding communal incidents, acknowledging the “missteps” that led to the plea for withdrawal.

In the months ahead, the legal battle will likely involve multiple layers: district courts, the High Court, and potentially the Supreme Court, should the state file an appeal. Each step will be watched closely by stakeholders across the political and religious spectrum.

What is clear is that the judiciary remains a critical bulwark against the politicization of justice. The Akhlaq lynching case, with its grim history and contentious legal battles, exemplifies how the rule of law can ultimately prevail—even when challenged by the very institutions that are supposed to uphold it.