Vigilante justice and mob intimidation pose a challenge to constitutional protections of vulnerable citizens. Discuss with examples.

Vigilante justice — punishment or "policing" by self-appointed individuals and mobs outside due process — substitutes crowd sentiment for constitutional procedure. Its newest form is digital: anonymous online mobs that threaten, dox and intimidate. For vulnerable citizens such as minors, women and protesters, this hollows out Articles 14 and 21 even where the law formally protects them.

Changing forms of vigilantism

• Street mobs to online mobs: intimidation now travels through social media, with vigilantes publicly bragging about harm caused to targets and their families [1].
• Example: in September 2026, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard a minor NEET-protest participant alleging online threats, and ordered protection for her and her family [1].
• Example: Delhi Police arrested an influencer over an alleged assault on a protester's father, showing online incitement spilling into physical violence [1].

Constitutional protections under strain

• Article 21: threats from non-state actors endanger life, liberty and dignity; the Court had to invoke its writ jurisdiction to compel police action on an FIR already registered at Parliament Street police station [1].
• Article 19: fear of doxxing creates a chilling effect on peaceful protest and dissent.
• Privacy: counsel argued vulnerable minors should reach the Court or its High-Powered Enquiry Committee directly to shield their identity [1].

Institutional and legal gaps

• Enforcement: FIR registration without follow-up, compounded by cross-state coordination — a Delhi FIR but protection owed by Uttar Pradesh Police [1].
• Statutory design: POCSO, 2012 protects children from sexual offences, not from threats and intimidation [2]; Section 67, IT Act, 2000 targets obscene electronic content, leaving doxxing to general criminal law [3].
• Victim support: the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 grades threats into Categories A–C with a State Witness Protection Fund, but reaches witnesses more than ordinary intimidated citizens [4].

Vigilantism thrives where enforcement is slow and remedies are scattered. Time-bound police action, a child-sensitive protection protocol extending the 2018 Scheme's threat-assessment model, and inter-state coordination can restore the State's monopoly on lawful force — ensuring that the dignity promised by Article 21 is secured administratively, not only through extraordinary judicial intervention.