The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed sharp dissatisfaction with the Uttar Pradesh government over its failure to register appropriate FIRs in connection with an alleged hate crime and assault on a Muslim man in Noida nearly five years after the incident.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta gave the state government two weeks to initiate steps to register cases under Sections 153B and 295A of the Indian Penal Code, which deal with acts prejudicial to national integration and deliberate attempts to outrage religious feelings. Both offences carry a maximum sentence of three years’ imprisonment.
The matter relates to a July 2021 incident involving Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, a 62-year-old Delhi resident, who was allegedly assaulted, abused with religious slurs and humiliated by a group of men in Noida. Although Sherwani had lodged a complaint soon after the incident, the police registered only minor assault-related charges and did not invoke provisions relating to hate crimes.
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the police had deliberately avoided applying the relevant sections despite clear allegations of religious targeting, and sought directions from the court to enforce compliance with the law, Maktoob Media reported.
At an earlier stage, the bench questioned whether the incident could automatically be treated as religious in nature merely because Sherwani’s beard was pulled. In response, Ahmadi said the act could not be viewed in isolation and pointed to what he described as a broader pattern of targeting Muslims in the state. The court, however, declined to expand the scope of the hearing to a wider examination of communal violence, noting that a separate set of petitions on hate crimes and vigilante violence was already pending before another bench. The judges observed that they were dealing with a single incident and that there was no empirical material before them to characterise it as part of a larger communal pattern.
Even so, the bench questioned Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, representing the Uttar Pradesh government, on why FIRs under Sections 153B and 295A had not been registered. The court clarified that while a prior sanction was required to prosecute offences under these provisions, the police were nonetheless duty-bound to register FIRs and carry out an investigation.
Nataraj informed the court that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the police personnel concerned and contended that the petitioner had other remedies available, including approaching a magistrate. The bench rejected this argument, stating that internal departmental inquiries could not replace statutory obligations imposed on the police.
Advocate Warisha Farasat, who is part of Sherwani’s legal team, said the refusal to register appropriate FIRs reflected a systemic failure rather than an isolated lapse, effectively denying victims access to justice at the initial stage. She said the court had made it clear that the police could not rely on the absence of sanction as a justification for failing to register and investigate cases when the law required them to do so.
The court asked the Uttar Pradesh government to clarify its position within two weeks and listed the matter for further hearing on February 16.
Sherwani had approached the apex court seeking action not only against those accused of assaulting him but also against police officials who allegedly refused to register his complaint or provide medical assistance at the time. He also sought directions for departmental action against senior officers and the creation of a victim compensation scheme.
The incident took place on July 4, 2021, when Sherwani was going from Delhi to Aligarh for a family wedding. He was allegedly abducted into a car near Sector 37 in Noida, assaulted, robbed and left seriously injured by a Hindutva mob. Medical assistance was initially denied, and police officers reportedly played down the episode, claiming it was not a hate crime. The case has since come to symbolise wider concerns over police inaction and the failure to invoke hate crime provisions in cases of targeted violence against Muslims in Uttar Pradesh.