Discover more

Law textbooks and casebooks South Asia rights Legal writing style guides Legal ethics training programs Human rights documentaries Legal news subscriptions

The Leaflet

A Muslim ragpicker’s lynching in Karnataka post-Pahalgam raises questions on laxity, delays in investigation: New PUCL, ACPR, AILAJ report calls to enforce Tehseen Poonawalla directive | The Leaflet

Leaflet Reports Criminal Justice Due Process Life and Liberty

A Muslim ragpicker’s lynching in Karnataka post-Pahalgam raises questions on laxity, delays in investigation: New PUCL, ACPR, AILAJ report calls to enforce Tehseen Poonawalla directive

A new fact-finding report by PUCL, ACPR and AILAJ Karnataka finds crucial lapses in investigation into the mob lynching of Mohd Ashraf. In Dakshin Kannada’s communally volatile atmosphere, the demand for a fair enforcement of the SC’s mob-lynching guidelines becomes crucial.

Ayush Gupta

Published on: 4 July 2025, 02:37 pm

A Muslim ragpicker’s lynching in Karnataka post-Pahalgam raises questions on laxity, delays in investigation: New PUCL, ACPR, AILAJ report calls to enforce Tehseen Poonawalla directive

ON APRIL 27, IN KUDUPU VILLAGE on Mangalore’s outskirts, a mob brutally beat to death Mohammed Ashraf, a 39-year-old Muslim ragpicker from Kerala. Eyewitnesses reported that Ashraf was walking near a local cricket ground when he was attacked by a group of young men. A recent fact-finding report by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, Karnataka, alongwith Association for Protection of Civil Rights, Karnataka and All India Lawyers Association for Justice, Karnataka titled Lost Fraternity, describes this. Initial police records showed Ashraf’s body was found at 1:30 PM with multiple injuries, and an Unnatural Death Report (‘UDR’) was filed that day. Only after pressure from activists was an FIR filed late on April 28 (over 24 hours later) under homicide provisions.

According to the report, Ashraf’s murder was borne of communalised tensions. The attack came just days after the Pahalgam terror strike on April 22, in a “hate-filled atmosphere” of anti-Muslim vitriol. Rumours quickly circulated that Ashraf had shouted pro-Pakistan slogans during the match.

Karnataka’s Home Minister G. Parameshwara initially told the press, “I was told that he shouted ‘Pakistan Zindabad’… Few people got together and beat him,”.

This narrative was later discredited. The PUCL report notes that “neither the police nor any media outlet had reported any claims” of such slogans at the scene. The following day, the Home Minister walked back his claim, saying it came only from the accused and lacked any independent verification.

The police investigation has been widely criticised for laxity and delay. The post-mortem on April 28 confirmed Ashraf’s death by blunt-force trauma, yet the family was not informed and saw the report only much later. According to the fact-finding report, “the police failed at every step” of the basic procedure.

Key lapses included registering only a UDR initially (despite obvious injuries) and delaying the murder FIR until late the next day.

The fact-finding report underscores that extremist figures often act with impunity. It recounts how a VHP leader, Sharan, openly boasted of involvement in an earlier communal killing, and yet faced no consequences.

As academic and PUCL member Arvind Narrain put it: “The problem arises when the state gives [fundamentalists] patronage and allows them to do what they want.” Ashraf’s lynching and the subdued response thereafter exemplify this climate of communal polarization and accountability deficit.

Enforce Tehseen Poonawalla guidelines, independent investigation: Report demands

The report concludes with concrete recommendations for the Karnataka government include:

Enforce Supreme Court directives on lynching in Tehseen Poonawalla (2018): This means immediately appointing a special public prosecutor, paying court-ordered compensation to the victim’s family, and educating police about anti-lynching guidelines. (Notably, similar directives already exist via state orders.) The Dakshina Kannada administration must issue a standard operating procedure to apply Tehseen’s anti-lynching safeguards at all levels.
Independent investigation and trial. The report calls to transfer the case to the Criminal Investigation Department for impartiality, set up a fast-track court to try the accused without undue delay, and demands that police should ensure FIRs are filed in every hate crime or communal incident, acting suo motu if necessary. The report also urges strict enforcement of other Supreme Court and Union guidelines (e.g. Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) and 2008 Communal Harmony guidelines) to deter vigilante groups.
Accountability for hate speech. The state must criminally investigate and penalise those fomenting hate, online or offline. The fact-finding team points to recent murders (such as the killings of Suhas Shetty and Abdul Rahiman) that were clearly triggered by inflammatory social media posts – yet police inaction on hate speech remains a “grave concern”.
Police reform and community confidence-building. The report calls for a more representative, sensitised police force. Officers should be trained in secularism and communal harmony, as mandated by law. The report also demands establishing a District Communal Harmony Cell (including civil society and minority groups) to monitor tensions and intervene early. It also calls to set up public trackers for communal FIRs, investigations, and prosecutions so citizens can hold authorities to account. Local administrations and Panchayats should organise regular peace meetings across communities.
Civil society engagement. Finally, the fact-finding team urges citizens and civil society groups to actively bridge communal divides. Pressure should be maintained on the government and police to uphold constitutional values. Journalists should challenge hate narratives and follow broadcasting guidelines. Public advocacy – from solidarity marches to legal interventions – can help ensure Ashraf’s lynching is not forgotten or repeated.

The legal void impairing India’s stance against mob-lynching is an affront to human rights