THE SUPREME COURT’S OCTOBER 7, 2025 ruling in Zainul v. State of Bihar arrives at a critical moment for the Indian criminal justice system. As mob violence cases surge in India, the ruling redefines the evidentiary threshold for prosecutions under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’), emphasising the distinction between active participants and passive bystanders.
The perils of constructive liability
With 947 hate-related incidents reported between June 2024 and June 2025, Indian courts have increasingly faced the challenge of separating genuine perpetrators from innocent bystanders in cases of collective violence.
The doctrine of constructive liability embedded in Section 149 of the IPC underlies this jurisprudential conundrum. While it serves the legitimate purpose of holding members of an unlawful assembly accountable for crimes committed in furtherance of their common object, its application has often swept innocent bystanders into the net of criminal culpability. The Supreme Court's October 2025 judgment in Zainul represents a significant recalibration of this doctrine, establishing more stringent evidentiary standards to safeguard against wrongful convictions.
At the heart of this case lay allegations against 72 persons accused of murder during a violent confrontation over settlement land in Bihar. The trial court convicted 21 individuals, and the High Court affirmed 12 convictions.
However, the Supreme Court's meticulous examination of the evidence revealed fundamental flaws in how the prosecution established membership in the unlawful assembly and participation in its common object.
