Written by Mugdhaakshee Mishra
Intern- Lex Lumen Research Journal,
December 2025
Recently, Chhattisgarh state women’s commission filled an FIR against Bajrangi Dal for assaulting two nuns and one tribal man who were arrested allegedly for human trafficking and forced religion conversion of three tribal women. In this incident the nuns and one tribal man were arrested by the police on charges of human trafficking and forced religious conversion, this was followed by the complaint by the members of Bajrangi Dal. The women’s commission in defence for the arrested individuals stated that the three tribal women were willingly traveling to Agra for work and that they were adults who were willingly practicing Christianity with full consent of the parents, this was later confirmed to the media. One of the tribal women claimed that she was coerced and assaulted by Bajrangi Dal activists to give a false statement.[1]
This is one of the many cases of such “moral policing” incidents. Groups like Bajrangi Dal, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Ram sene, Gau Raksha Dals, and khap panchayat cause menace, harassment, assault, in the society to innocent individuals in the name of culture and religion.
This blog explores the surge of these self-proclaimed “cultural protectors”, i.e., the group of individuals who claim to defend traditions and religion, yet often act contrary to the very values that they believe to uphold. Also, how in the name of culture they police People’s private life, their choices, and impose their personal interpretation of morality. The blog will also explore the misuse and harm they cause and talk about the silence of the legal system, the gaps in the law, lack of accountability, what the law says about this kind of groups, and what the law should do.
CULTURAL VIGILANTISM
Who Are These “Cultural Protectors” ?
Cultural protectors are the self-proclaimed vigilante groups of individuals not authorised by the law, who impose a code of morality and traditions in the name of religion and culture through harassment, intimidation, violence, and coercion.
They protest and oppose cultural concepts that they have deemed to be imported from the western culture. For instance, during Valentine’s Day, there is a surge of such cultural protectors, who attack gifts and greeting cards shop prior such days, they harass couples on that day as well.
Cultural protectors often go beyond just opposing valentine’s day. They also engage in other activities like the Gau Raskshaks (cow protection squads), have reportedly lynched and killed Dalits and Muslims and raided their homes on suspicion of eating and possessing beef. Given Hinduism’s emphasis on respect for human life, killing humans ostensibly to protect cows is not really a religious undertaking[2], there is this another group called the “Anti Romeo” squad they target individuals particularly the young couples in public places based on their perception of the violation of the Indian traditions, such as inter religious romance, and there are other such groups who use violence to impose strict caste based hierarchies and also against filmmakers whose work they deem offensive to Hindu traditions and cultures.
WHY IS CULTURAL VIGILANTISM INCREASING?
Politics has played a huge role in the increase of cultural vigilantism. Many politicians indirectly encourage such “cultural protection” narrative, even though the politicians do not openly encourage this but their silence on such incidents gives confidence or indirect approval to such groups. Despite legal provisions like section 196 of BNS and section 123(3A) of Representation of the people Act, political silence and selective outrage encourage cultural vigilantes to act without the fear of prosecution.
Identity crisis and need for belonging is an issue that gives rise to cultural vigilantism. The youth of India face social pressure, unemployment, and lack of purpose, which can result in the rise of such groups as these groups offer a sense of belonging, identity, a sense of power, and even a way to feel important.
Social media influence promotes misinformation, hyper nationalism, video based moral policing, and vigilantes record and upload videos for validation. IT Act and BNS provides provisions against such harmful content but they are poorly enforced, online platforms rarely remove such contents and there is no specific law to curb online radicalisation.
Cultural vigilantism has its roots from patriarchy, ego, dominance, controlling women’s private choices, their freedom, policing relationships, proving dominance over minorities using violence as “cultural authority”. Their actions violate article 14,15, and 21 of the constitution which provides provisions against inequality, discrimination, and right to life and dignity.
LEGAL LACUNAE
One of the reasons for the surge of cultural vigilantism is because of lacuna in the legal system, lack of reforms and enforcement of the law.
Weak policing leads to cultural vigilantes, police are the only lawful authority, unlike the vigilante groups and when they fail to combat these groups due to many reasons such as arriving late in such scenarios, avoiding confrontation, fear of backlash, political pressure, and when they are in support of such groups. All of these reasons embolden vigilantes. The Police Act 1861, provides the police with broad powers and duties to maintain law and order and take action against any unlawful assembly or breaches of the peace, which inherently includes controlling vigilante groups.[3] And the failure, would mean dereliction of duty.
“Justice delayed, justice denied”, due to delay in judiciary for hearing and deciding cases leads witnesses to turn hostile, and perpetrators get bail easily.
Some vigilante groups are backed by political power, such groups are usually backed up by certain political party or local party, they are given funds, immunity from arrest, and even gives them legal cover and legitimacy.
No specific laws dealing against vigilante groups, there is no law that punishes vigilante groups as vigilante groups. There are no provisions that bans such vigilante groups, no strict punishment for their actions and the harm they do to the public, and even no proper definition of vigilantism. This gap in the legal system is the reason cultural vigilantism survives.
SOCIAL CONSEQUENCE
Such groups often target individuals and couples whom they deem to be “immoral” or “against culture”, especially they target women and minorities.[4]This creates an environment of pervasive fear and insecurity, limiting freedom of movement and expression for women and minorities.[5] The normalization of vigilante groups happen when the state fails to protect the rights of the citizens, this shifts the burdens of law enforcement from the legal authorities to unelected and often violent vigilante groups, this leads to the normalization of moral policing. Interference in the private life, the right to privacy and personal autonomy is an important constitutional right which was affirmed in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.[6] Vigilante groups directly interfere with this right by dictating norms for personal behaviour. Vigilante activities and moral policing erode the constitutional rights, it challenges article 14 and 15 which guarantees equality, freedom of expression and assembly under article 19, and the right to life with dignity and personal liberty under article 21. These groups often operate on a psychological power and control, with the intention to impose their patriarchal and conservative ideologies on the society. The social consequences include secondary victimization of victims by the system, and an overall breakdown of public order and trust in law enforcement agencies.[7]
REFORMS
There is a need to understand that cultural protection does not give them the authority or right to harass others. The surge of such vigilante groups not only impedes development but also push the country backwards. We need to create and spread awareness among the citizens and make them understand that culture flourishes in freedom not in fear. The legal system should impose strict guidelines for such vigilante groups to follow, so that our constitutional rights are not violated, there is a need for a proper definition of “vigilante groups” for clarity, and a separate law is needed to control or keep an eye on them considering their surge and harm in the society.
[4] Moral Policing vs Constitutional Morality: why “culture” cannot police women’s choices
[6] JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY V. UNION OF INDIA
