The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed displeasure with the Uttar Pradesh government for failing to register FIRs in connection with an alleged
hate speech and assault on a Muslim man in Noida five years ago.
The apex court granted the state two weeks to take steps to register cases under IPC Sections 153B (imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings by insulting religion or religious beliefs). Both offences carry a maximum sentence of three years’ imprisonment.
The petitioner, Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, alleged that in 2021 he was abused on religious grounds and his beard was pulled by the accused. Although he lodged a complaint with the Noida police, only minor assault-related offences were registered and the police failed to invoke Sections 153B and 295A. These provisions also require
prior government sanction for prosecution.
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the petitioner, on Tuesday submitted that the Uttar Pradesh police had failed to invoke the applicable penal provisions and sought directions from the court for compliance with the mandate of law.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta initially questioned how the incident could be termed “religious” merely because the petitioner’s beard was pulled. Responding to this, Ahmadi argued that this was not an isolated case, but there was a general pattern in the state where persons of one community sought to be targeted. However, the bench refused to be drawn into a discussion on the general issue since the court had recently reserved its verdict on a separate batch of petitions seeking action against those resorting to vigilante justice and hate crimes.
“We are not giving it that colour (communal). There is one incident before us, no empirical evidence,” the bench said.
The bench, however, questioned additional solicitor-general K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, on why FIRs under the relevant IPC provisions had not been registered.
The court pointed out that while the grant of sanction for prosecution was within the government’s domain, the state was nonetheless obligated to register FIRs and conduct an investigation.
Nataraj informed the court that disciplinary action had been initiated against the erring police personnel and argued that the petitioner had the alternative remedy of approaching the jurisdictional magistrate.
Rejecting this submission, the bench observed: “Initiating an inquiry is not an answer. Tell us what you have done after the issuance of the notice? Unless you register a case and investigate and seek a sanction, how will prosecution proceed?” The court added that the state must either add the relevant sections to the FIR or face appropriate directions from the court.
The Supreme Court granted the Uttar Pradesh government two weeks to clarify its stand and listed the matter for further hearing on February 16.