SC pulls up UP police for not including hate crime charges in 2021 Muslim man abuse case

The Supreme Court criticized Uttar Pradesh Police for not including hate speech provisions in a case involving a Muslim man tortured over his identity.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up the Uttar Pradesh Police for going back on its assurance to include hate speech provisions in relation to a 2021 incident where a Delhi man claimed to have been tortured, abused and humiliated over his Muslim identity.

The incident was on July 4, 2021 when a resident of Delhi, came to Noida to travel to Aligarh. It was there he was accosted by a group of men who offered him a lift and then abused him and pulled his beard. (Representative photo)

After examining a petition filed by Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, who approached the top court in 2021 after the UP Police refused to register his complaint,the UP government had informed the top courtthat the relevant hate crime provision under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) had been added. This provision punishes malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings and carries a maximum sentence of three years.

Taking noting of this,the bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta remarked, “Once you have got permission from the trial court to carry out further investigation, you cannot restrict it to section 295A.”

The court referred to its earlier order of February 16 where additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj had said that offences punishable under sections 153B and 295A of the IPC were made out from Sherwani’s complaint.

Reminding the state of its own statement, the bench said, “Can you back out from including section 153B?”

This provision punishes any act or word against a person by reason of their religious identity that is likely to cause disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred in society and also carries a maximum sentence of three years.

ASG Nataraj, who was present in court said, “We will examine it. We are bound by our earlier statement.”

The court was inclined to summon the investigating officer (IO) for taking the matter casually but refrained from doing so on the law officer’s assurance to make amends. “Why is your IO doing this? Let him come and explain to this court. In any way, this shows what the fate of the case will be.”

Posting the matter on May 19, the bench held, “We are not happy with the compliance report submitted by the state of Uttar Pradesh and are inclined to summon the IO. However, we grant two weeks for full compliance with our earlier order of February 16, 2026.” The court further directed the state to bring a copy of the supplementary charge sheet to be filed in the trial court.

Advocate Shahrukh Alam appearing for the petitioner said that the petitioner has waited over five years for justice. She referred to the compliance report and said that portions of the original complaint were conveniently omitted by the state. “There has been an important deletion in the compliance report. While they accept that derogatory remarks were made by the accused who pulled his beard and removed the cap, it does not mention that he was stripped. It was not only his cap that was taken out but also his clothes,” she said.

Sherwani had approached the top court seeking compensation for the injury caused to him by the inaction of the police to register his complaint. The state had registered the FIR in January 2023 for criminal intimidation and causing hurt and claimed that the complainant (Sherwani) was targeted by the accused who operated as a gang and picked up persons with the intention to loot them.

While the court was not willing to give a communal “colour” to the incident claiming that such a generalisation cannot be made based on a single incident, the court had questioned the state over its denial of the case having anything to do with hate crime.

The incident was on July 4, 2021 when Sherwani, a resident of Delhi, came to Noida to travel to Aligarh. It was there he was accosted by a group of men who offered him a lift and then abused him and pulled his beard.

The state had earlier filed its charge sheet in the case but pursuant to the February 16 order moved an application for further investigation and got an order in this regard from the court of chief judicial magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar on March 25.

The state had earlier informed the top court that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the cops who failed to register his complaint. However, on the complaint by Sherwani, it initially alleged that he was “lying” and later claimed that the petitioner was “sensationalising” the case.

However, the bench had told the state to examine provisions of hate crime. The court had remarked, “A Muslim man has a beard as an integral part of his religious practice. This has come out in the statement made by him to the Delhi police. By verbally abusing and pulling the beard, the intimation of it being a hate crime is very clear.”