When events happen in perfect synchrony, whether in a mob lynching or a protest that spirals into chaos, the result is the same: it becomes nearly impossible to pinpoint who did what. Who threw the first stone? Who set the fire? Who struck the fatal blow? In the eyes of the law, identifying accountability in these collective acts is one of the hardest challenges.
That’s exactly what unfolded in Nepal this September, where a government ban on 26 popular apps sparked nationwide Gen Z protests, digital “elections” on Discord, violent clashes, and even deaths. And just like in mob lynching cases in India, Nepal’s legal system might be facing an uncomfortable question right now: when citizens act together in the thousands, can the law really hold them accountable?
Picture this: five friends step into a protest. One throws a stone. Suddenly, under Indian and Nepali law, all five could be criminals — even the ones who never touched a rock.
India — BNS Sections 189–195
Sec. 189 – Unlawful Assembly: five or more people with a common unlawful object (like violence or resisting law) = unlawful.
Sec. 190 – Liability of Members: if one member commits an offence for that purpose, all are guilty.
Sec. 191 – Rioting: when the group actually uses force or violence, every member is guilty of rioting.
Sec. 192 – Provoking a Riot: anyone who deliberately provokes or incites others to riot is punishable.
Sec. 193 – Responsibility of Land Owners: if a riot happens on someone’s property and they failed to act, they can also be fined.
Sec. 194 – Affray: if two or more people fight in public and disturb peace, it’s an offence (even without weapons).
Sec. 195 – Obstructing Public Servants: attacking or blocking police/officials trying to stop a riot invites harsher punishment.
Nepal — Criminal Code Sections 60 & 62
Sec. 60 – Unlawful Assembly: gathering of five or more people with an intent to use force or commit offences is illegal.
Sec. 62 – Collective Liability: if one person in that assembly commits a crime, everyone present can be held guilty.
Serious crimes under collective liability (e.g., murder during riots): Punishment: life imprisonment or even death penalty in extreme cases.
Nepal’s Criminal Code technically criminalizes unlawful assembly and collective liability, but the penalties are surprisingly low:
Sec. 60 – Unlawful Assembly: only 1 year in jail or a fine of NPR 10,000 (~$75–80).
Sec. 62 – Collective Liability: all members can be punished if a serious crime occurs, but basic participation without escalation carries minimal consequences.
Punishment: basic participation carries minimal consequences; serious crimes are punishable, but prosecution is rare and penalties light compared to India.
Why Nepal’s Punishments Are Considered Light:
Lower statutory limits: Even for rioting or collective offences, Nepal’s maximum jail terms are short (1 year) and fines are small (~$75–80). In contrast, India explicitly allows years to life imprisonment, or the death penalty in case of murder.
Minimal differentiation between minor and serious offences: In Nepal, basic participation in an unlawful assembly may attract the same light penalty whether or not someone was seriously injured.
India scales punishment according to the severity of the act, for example:
Rioting causing death → life imprisonment.
Attacking police → up to 3 years imprisonment.
Provoking a riot → up to 2 years imprisonment.
Murder under collective liability → life imprisonment or death.
Law on Paper vs. Law in Action
On paper, many countries have laws similar to India’s and Nepal’s: unlawful assembly, collective liability, rioting, and obstruction of public servants. But in practice, how strongly these laws bite depends on enforcement capacity and political will. In countries with weaker institutions, punishments may look harsh in theory but rarely translate into convictions.
Key factors that make enforcement weaker in some countries:
Lower penalties = lower incentive to prosecute
If the law only prescribes a fine or short jail term (like 6–12 months), police and prosecutors often won’t invest time and resources in difficult riot cases. By contrast, harsher punishments (like years in prison or life terms) create stronger incentives to pursue convictions.
Resource and infrastructure gaps
Countries with smaller or underfunded police forces lack the forensic tools, digital analysis capacity, and manpower needed to process huge volumes of evidence (videos, phone data, witness statements). This makes linking individuals to crimes much harder.
Judicial backlog and capacity
Where courts are overburdened and slow, riot cases can take years. By the time a verdict comes, witnesses withdraw, memories fade, and public attention shifts — reducing the deterrent effect.
Political and social pressure
In many countries, large protests are politically sensitive. Governments may avoid pressing harsh charges against mobs to prevent escalation or because they fear backlash from influential groups.
Scale and reach of enforcement machinery
Some legal systems give police broad arrest and detention powers (e.g., India), while others are more constrained. Countries with fewer officers per capita or weaker pre-trial detention powers struggle more to contain mob cases.
✅ The takeaway: Nepal’s laws exist, but the light punishments, combined with practical enforcement challenges, mean many mobs or protests escape serious legal consequences. In contrast, India’s law is much stricter on paper, though practical challenges still remain.
Legally, the toolbox to hold mobs accountable exists: BNS §§189–195 (India) and Nepal’s Secs. 60 & 62 make group liability explicit. But on the ground, prosecutions routinely fail because of a combination of practical and political barriers:
Even when the law is clear, the path from statute to conviction is anything but straightforward — a tangle of chaos, fear, and limited resources often leaves perpetrators unpunished. Here’s why
Diffused action = diffused evidence. The statute says “every member is guilty,” but courts still need proof linking individuals to the criminal act (who struck, who fired, who set the fire). In chaos, that proof is scarce. Ministry of Home Affairs+1
Identification problems. Masks, crowds, poor-quality footage, and mass movement make reliable ID of perpetrators hard. Investigations stall or convert to generic “rioting” charges without murder/culpable-homicide anchors. Ministry of Home Affairs
Witness intimidation & reluctance. Neighbours, bystanders and even co-protesters fear retaliation; witness statements evaporate or become contradictory. Ministry of Home Affairs
Capacity and forensics. Police may lack resources, quick forensic capability, or trained personnel to parse dozens/hundreds of video clips and phone records needed to tie persons to acts. Ministry of Home Affairs
Political and social pressure. When large protests carry social sympathy (e.g., large youth movements) or partisan support, authorities may be reluctant to pursue mass arrests or press hard for convictions — both to avoid escalation and for political calculations. Ministry of Home Affairs+1
In theory, the law can punish the crowd, but in practice, accountability often dissolves in the chaos — leaving a troubling gap between justice on paper and justice on the ground.
