On March 28, 2025—Jumat-ul-Vida, the last Friday of Ramzan—hundreds of Muslims in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, wore black armbands during congregational prayers to register a peaceful and symbolic protest against the newly passed Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2024. At the time of the protest, the Act was a bill. The bill has now been passed by both the houses of the Parliament, with Lok Sabha passing it on April 2, 2025 and Rajya Sabha on April 3, 2025, and has received the assent of the President of India.
This protest was in line with an open call by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) urging Muslims across the country to express their opposition to the Act by donning black armbands. While similar demonstrations occurred without incident in other states, including Karnataka and Bihar—where even ministers participated—Uttar Pradesh responded with an unprecedented show of state power and repression. The administration has accused hundreds of Muslim men in Muzaffarnagar of “disrupting peace” and “inciting the public,” even though there were no reports of violence, disruption, or unlawful assembly during or after the prayers.
BIG ANNOUNCEMENT
⭕ वक्फ़ संशोधन बिल के खिलाफ मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड का बड़ा ऐलान!
रमज़ान के इस आख़री जुमा, जुमातुल विदा को मुसलमान यह काम ज़रूर करें…👇🏻
This Ramazan’s Jumma Tul Wida Let us Protest against Waqf Amendment Bill by this method 👇🏻#IndiaAgainstWaqfBill… pic.twitter.com/FPFC0XSZbk
— All India Muslim Personal Law Board (@AIMPLB_Official) March 27, 2025
The Charges: Disrupting peace by wearing armbands
On April 5, the City Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar issued notices under Section 130 of the Indian Civil Defence Code to more than 300 Muslims, accusing them of “inciting the general public and endangering law and order.” The sole basis for this accusation, as per the notice, was that they wore black armbands inside the mosque while offering prayers—a constitutionally protected form of expression.
The notices demand that each of the accused appear in court on April 16, 2025 and furnish a surety bond of ₹2 lakh, failing which further legal consequences may follow. The language of the notice makes sweeping and speculative claims, stating that “it is believed that in the future, the respondents may incite the general public and spread misinformation,” thereby justifying pre-emptive action against individuals who have not violated any law.
This use of Section 130—a preventive provision meant to maintain peace in times of actual threat—is being grossly misapplied here to punish individuals for peaceful, symbolic dissent. The invocation of such provisions in the absence of any violence or disorder raises serious questions about the arbitrary use of executive power to criminalise protest.
Lack of evidence, arbitrary targeting
What makes the state’s action even more alarming is the complete absence of individualised inquiry or due process. Notices have been issued not only to those who participated in the protest, but also to people who weren’t even present or aware of the protest.
According to Maktoob Media, Naeem Tyagi, principal of Madrasa Mahmudiya, is among those who received a notice. He categorically stated that he did not wear a black armband and only learned of the protest after arriving at the mosque. “Thousands came for Friday prayers—some wore armbands, many did not. No slogans were raised. There was no demonstration, no speech, no incident,” he said.
Similarly, Shabbir, a resident of Sarwat village, received a notice and has declared his intention to challenge it in court. “If MPs can wear black clothes to protest inside Parliament, how is our peaceful action at a mosque any different?” he questioned, as per a report in Maktoob Media. Shabbir also noted that some people listed in the notices haven’t lived in the village for years—suggesting a blanket, communalised approach rather than a lawful, fact-based response.
The local police, when contacted by journalists, failed to offer any explanation or legal justification for their actions and instead disconnected calls—a disturbing reflection of the lack of transparency and accountability that surrounds this crackdown.
Selective policing and disproportionate response
The administration’s action in Muzaffarnagar cannot be seen in isolation. It comes in the context of heightened policing and surveillance across Muslim-majority districts in Uttar Pradesh. Following the passage of the Waqf Amendment Act in Parliament, alerts were issued in districts such as Lucknow, Moradabad, Rampur, Bareilly, Meerut, Amroha, Aligarh, Firozabad, and Shamli, and large contingents of police and paramilitary forces were deployed. Flag marches were conducted by senior police and administrative officers to “maintain peace.”
This alleged militarised response to a symbolic protest smacks of disproportion and is deeply telling of the communal mind-set that governs state action in Uttar Pradesh. In other parts of the country—such as Karnataka—people peacefully offered Eid prayers wearing black armbands, including elected officials and government representatives. States in cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, Lucknow, Bhopal, Kolkata, Jaipur, Ranchi, Nuh, and Coimbatore, and in smaller towns like Baran, Tonk, Bhagwanpur, Mandya, Belagavi, and Bidar, scores of Muslim men and clerics were seen with black bands tied to their sleeves—a show of unity and political expression from a community often vilified for its protest. No such action was taken against them. Only in Uttar Pradesh was this peaceful and silent protest by Muslims was met with threats, intimidation, and legal coercion.
The Act, the right to dissent and the criminalisation of Muslim expression
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2024, introduced by Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, has sparked nationwide concern among citizens. The Act, which got the President’s assent on April 6, claims to “streamline administration” and “increase transparency,” but many have argued that it allows greater state control over Waqf properties and undermines the autonomy of religious endowments managed by the Muslim community.
Opposition to the Act is not only legitimate but rooted in constitutional freedoms. Protest—particularly peaceful protest—is a cornerstone of democratic expression. To wear a black armband is a time-honoured form of dissent. It has been used globally—from the Vietnam War protests in the US to anti-CAA movements in India—as a non-violent signal of disagreement with state policy.
Criminalising this form of protest by branding it a security threat is not only constitutionally untenable, but morally bankrupt and politically motivated. Additionally, this is not an isolated incident. It fits a larger pattern in many BJP ruled states, especially the state of Uttar Pradesh, where Muslims have routinely been penalised for protest—whether it was the anti-CAA movement, the Friday prayers after incidents of lynching, or even expressions of solidarity with global Muslim causes. Protesters have been met with FIRs, house demolitions, mass arrests, and police violence, while calls for violence from other quarters are often ignored or legitimised.
Remarkably, this show of peaceful resistance came even as state agencies in some BJP-ruled states issued veiled threats and warnings. In Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, local police had earlier warned that offering Eid prayers on public pavements could result in revocation of arms licences or passports. Nonetheless, young men in the town were seen participating in the armband protest during Friday prayers, stitching their own bands or using pieces of cloth—demonstrating that grassroots mobilisation continues despite intimidation.
In Bhopal, clerics clarified that the black armband protest was strictly tied to Jumat-ul-Vida, not Eid, to avoid conflating it with religious celebrations. Bhopal Qazi Syed Mustak Ali Nadvi reiterated that the AIMPLB had called for a solemn, prayerful protest—not for confrontation or public disruption.
As per ANI, Maulana Khalid Rasheed Farangi Mahali, who led the Friday prayers at Aishbagh Eidgah in Lucknow, joined the protest by wearing a black armband himself. Addressing the community, he reiterated the Board’s concerns, stating that the now passed legislation was not in the interest of Muslims and urging Parliament to withdraw it
The current episode in Muzaffarnagar is another stark reminder of how law is used as a tool of political repression, especially against Muslims in the state. The government’s message is clear: any form of Muslim political expression, however peaceful, is suspect. Dissent is not just discouraged—it is actively punished.
A silent resistance with powerful symbolism
Despite the limited time between the announcement and the day of prayer, participation was widespread. In many mosques, the Friday khutbah (sermon) included references to the implications of the now passed legislation, which the Board and its supporters believe poses a grave threat to the autonomy and sanctity of religious endowments managed under Waqf. At Delhi’s historic Jama Masjid, hundreds of worshippers participated in the armband protest. A worshipper there remarked that the turnout might have been even higher had senior clerics like Imam Ahmed Bukhari publicly endorsed the call.
Prominent figures in the community did, however, lend their weight to the demonstration. In Lucknow, Maulana Khalid Rasheed Farangi Mahali, Imam of Aishbagh Eidgah and chairman of the Islamic Centre of India, led Alvida prayers while wearing a black armband. He reiterated the community’s concerns and appealed for justice not just regarding the Act but also in the context of Palestinian suffering, which was observed in tandem with International Quds Day—another global protest against Israeli occupation.
The AIMPLB had clarified that their call for protest was intended specifically for Jumu’atul Wida and not for Eid, although some Eid congregations across the country did see black armband-wearing worshippers as well. In historic locations such as Jama Masjid in Delhi, hundreds joined the protest in silence, reflecting both unity and urgency in the face of what the Board described as a legislative attack on community assets.
“Today’s protest is a message to Parliament that Indian Muslims are united in their opposition to this Bill. We are deeply worried about its consequences on our mosques, madrasas, dargahs, and graveyards,” said Maulana Mahali, as per a report in The Hindu.
In public statements and on social media, the Board has described the Act as “controversial, discriminatory, and damaging,” and warned that it would pave the way for the state to arbitrarily appropriate or interfere in the functioning of Waqf institutions under the guise of reform and transparency.
AIMPLB spokesperson S.Y.R. Ilyas hailed the response to the black armband protest as a sign of growing political awareness within the Muslim community. “We issued the call very late, but the overwhelming turnout reflects the desperation of the community to protect its institutions. This is only the beginning,” he said, as per Free Press Journal.
The protest was part of AIMPLB’s broader strategy to mobilise constitutional and democratic resistance to the Act. The Board’s 31-member Action Committee has resolved to continue using peaceful and lawful methods to oppose the recently passed amendments, which they have labelled as “controversial, discriminatory, and damaging”.
On social media, the AIMPLB declared the Act to be a “sinister conspiracy” designed to strip the Muslim community of its historical religious and charitable properties—mosques, Eidgahs, madrasas, graveyards, dargahs, khanqahs, and more. In its official statement, the Board called upon every Muslim to treat resistance to the Act as a collective responsibility, urging them to take part in silent yet visible protest.
मुसलमानों से एक महत्वपूर्ण अपील
वक़्फ़ संशोधन विधेयक 2024 के खिलाफ
जुमा-तुल-विदा के मौके पर अपने बाजू पर काली पट्टी बांधकर विरोध दर्ज करेंऔर इस हैशटैग को इस्तेमाल करते हुए फोटो ट्वीट करें 👇#IndiaAgainstWaqfBill pic.twitter.com/sLs5oU6I1R
— All India Muslim Personal Law Board (@AIMPLB_Official) March 27, 2025
Beyond Armbands: Solidarity with Palestine and political resistance
In addition to the black armbands, some worshippers also carried Palestinian flags and placards, expressing solidarity with residents of Gaza and aligning the protest with broader concerns about justice and human rights. The overlap with Quds Day, observed globally on the last Friday of Ramzan to protest Israeli actions in Palestine, added to the emotional and political tenor of the day.
Meanwhile, the AIMPLB’s campaign to oppose the Waqf Act has not been limited to symbolic gestures. In recent months, it has organised multi-party dharnas in Patna and New Delhi, drawing support from political parties like the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD). Leaders such as Lalu Prasad Yadav and Tejashwi Yadav have publicly backed the protests, amplifying the message that the legislation is viewed not just as a communal issue, but as a constitutional and democratic concern.
Conclusion: A call for accountability and Constitutionalism
In an age where peaceful protest is frequently met with surveillance, criminalisation, or suppression—particularly when it comes from Muslims—the success of the black armband demonstration is both symbolic and substantial. It shows that people across the country are willing to unite in the defence of their institutions and rights.
The UP-government’s action against black armband protesters is legally unsound, constitutionally indefensible, and morally reprehensible. It undermines the very principles of democracy by punishing individuals not for what they did, but for who they are and what they might do in the future. It reflects a regime that is less interested in public order and more invested in silencing minority dissent through intimidation and fear.
The judiciary must intervene to uphold the constitutional rights of those targeted and ensure that the right to peaceful protest is protected. Civil society, too, must speak out and stand in solidarity with the victims of this arbitrary state action. If wearing a black band in protest is a crime in today’s India, then democracy itself is in peril.
Related:
SC: Recent judgment in the Imran Pratapgarhi case, what are police powers under section 173 (3) BNS?