India's Constitution provides numerous rights and freedoms. These include the right to create groups or associations under Article 19 (1)(c) of the Constitution of India. Such groups as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) are some examples of socio-cultural and religious groups. While these organizations are legally registered and permitted to exist, their activities raise serious constitutional and legal concerns, particularly where these actions can amount to vigilantism, moral policing, or communal intimidation.
Under Indian law, the mere existence of an organization or its ideological orientation isn’t illegal, unless expressly banned under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The Supreme Court has consistently protected ideological expression while simultaneously holding that no belief system can justify unlawful conduct. So, organizations or groups such as the RSS or Bajrang Dal do not attract illegality per se.
However, legal recognition does not mean moral or legal immunity. In the case of Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court condemned vigilantism, holding that “no citizen can take the law into his own hands,” and imposed a obligation on the State to prevent and punish mob violence.
A recurring constitutional concern arises from the manner in which certain extra-political groups use selective moral or cultural narratives whichare often incomplete, distorted, or historically contestable and weaponize them as justification for coercive action. By claiming a moral high ground, such groups position themselves as Guardians of culture, enabling acts such as harassment, moral policing, enforced shutdowns, or intimidation.
This phenomenon is mostly backed by group power and political patronage. The existence of a large, mobilised following often exerts informal pressure on law enforcement agencies, creating a delay in being able to properly respond and to enforce the laws against all involved. This results in a lack of prosecution (by having all of the charges diluted or reduced) or the police choose not to act in any manner. Traditionally, police have expressed a reluctance to intervene because they do not want to influence a larger display of force or political dissent, allowing unlawful conduct to persist under the guise of cultural expression.
The constitutional irony is stark:
The same fundamental rights used to justify the existence of these organizations are routinely violated in their enforcement of moral conformity.
The freedom of association becomes a shield for suppressing the freedoms of speech, movement, privacy, and personal liberty of others.
When members of such organization engage in such coercive conduct, they still remain liable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), including provisions relating to unlawful assembly (Section 189), promoting enmity between groups (Section 196), criminal intimidation (Section 351), and assault or criminal force (Sections 130–136). Crucially, Section 190 BNS (formerly Section 149 IPC) imposes collective liability, making every member of an unlawful assembly accountable for acts committed in pursuit of a common object. And yet such acts persist.
The constitutional challenge, therefore, lies not in banning organizations, but in confronting the parallel moral authority they assert through intimidation and political influence they hold. When private groups claim the power to regulate social behaviour, they erode the monopoly of the State. The continued tolerance of organisations that operate in this manner is indicative of more than simply ineffective enforcement — it is also reflective of an incremental erosion of constitutional authority.