The report, jointly compiled by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) and the Quill Foundation, has recorded 947 hate-related incidents from June 7, 2024, to June 7, 2025. These include 602 hate crimes and 345 instances of hate speech, many of them linked to members or affiliates of Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

“Despite the increasing intensity and occurrences, there is no institutional effort to record or document hate crimes,” the report said. It noted that while atrocities against Dalits are tracked under Indian law, no similar mechanism exists for religious minorities.

Muslims were the primary victims, with 1,460 affected in 419 incidents. Christians, while fewer in incident count, accounted for 1,504 victims in 85 attacks. At least 25 Muslims were killed, and 173 incidents involved physical violence.

Recently, Citizens for Justice & Peace documented 180 such hate attacks post the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22. Of these 37% were tied to ‘revenge’ against the minority (Muslims). The graphic visualization of this may be seen and read here.

In this new report, hate speech was also recorded to have intensified, with 178 of the 345 incidents attributed to BJP-linked individuals, including Prime Minister Modi and several chief ministers. Two judges and a governor were also reported to have made inflammatory remarks, sparking concern about the institutional normalisation of hate.

Uttar Pradesh topped the list of affected states, followed by Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Jharkhand—all BJP-governed. The report suggests a correlation between election activity and spikes in hate incidents, with inflammatory speeches and violence increasing during campaign periods.

Incidents ranged from mob attacks over cow slaughter allegations to assaults during religious festivals and campaigns targeting interfaith couples and businesses owned by Muslims. In March 2025, 267 Christians were affected during a wave of attacks on churches and prayer meetings.

Children and the elderly persons from the minority have not been not spared. The report documented 32 hate crimes targeting minors and 10 incidents involving senior citizens, most of them Muslims.

Only 13% of hate crimes resulted in formal police complaints (FIRs), highlighting gaps in accountability and justice. “This figure is indicative of the worsening atmosphere Indian Muslims are undergoing and a lag in the criminal justice system,” the authors wrote.

The study warns of the lasting social consequences of unchecked hate and calls for institutional mechanisms to track and combat targeted violence. “Hate crimes and hate speech never occur in isolation,” the report states. “They impact families, communities, and the nation.”

Related:

30 FIRs Registered against Hate Speech and Hate Crimes: DGP, Maharashtra

As the date for the general assembly election approaches, hate crimes in India continue

The post Hate crimes: Report documents 602 hate crimes, 345 hate speech incidents in 1st year of Modi’s third term appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Targeted Violence in April and May

In the months of April and May, CJP documented 180 instances of targeted violence against Indian Muslims post the Pahalgam attack. Of these, 77 took place in April, and 103 in May. These spanned from outright cases of murder (3 specific instances, 3 victims) to nearly 99 cases of hate speech (made by politicians, proponents of Hindutva and other individuals and organisations with affiliations to the Hindu-right). The attacks spiked between April 23 and 25 (10, 12 and 18 cases respectively), following a near-steady course of events right through May. The following is a visualisation of this pattern of violence across the month.

Graph representing number of incidences of communal violence in relation to time

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!

These attacks were spread out across India, as demonstrated by this map – although they were majorly spatially concentrated in northern and central India – with Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Haryana being the 5 worst offenders – with 29, 28, 22, 21 and 10 instances respectively.

Pie-chart representing the percentage of targeted violence per-state

Many (at least 66 out of 180 incidents had the assailants referring to the Pahalgam attack or accusing the victims of allegiance to Pakistan, thus directly relating it to the same and the state’s narrativisation of the violence – thus bringing up the percentage to 36.66%. This does not obviously include incidents which did not have the perpetrators bringing up the attack or alluding some association to it, although, in most cases one can make the assumption that the spike in attacks is related to the perception of the attack) of these incidents were direct outcomes of the Pahalgam attack, with many of the perpetrators citing it as the reason for the same.

A chilling example would be the video of a man claiming responsibility for the killing of a young Muslim man, who was shot dead near a restaurant located on Shilpgram Road in Tajganj police station area, in Agra, Uttar Pradesh. The man in the video identifies himself as a member of ‘Kshatriya Gauraksha Dal’. “Bharat Mata ki saugandh, 26 ka badla agar 2,600 se na liya toh mei Bharat Mata ka putr nahi, Jai shri Ram, Jai Hindu Rashtra, Bharat Mata ki Jai”, the man is heard saying. The two men have knives and a pistol tucked inside their waist. Reacting to the viral video, Agra Police said, “Regarding the viral video on social media, it is to be informed that no organization named Kshatriya Gau Raksha Dal is working in Agra.”

This recent spike in attacks on India’s religious minorities must be contextualized — there is an establishment of a “new normal”. This systemic violent targeting of India’s Muslims (and Christians) can be traced back to 2014, when a new avatar of the Bharatiya Janata Party assumed control at the centre. The Centre for Study of Society and Secularism writes, “Historically, communal riots often involved groups from two religious communities clashing, with both sides inflicting and suffering losses … However, in recent years, the nature of larger riots has shifted. Instead of clashes between two communities, many significant riots now involve state actions disproportionately targeting the Muslim community. These actions include using bulldozers to demolish properties owned by Muslims, causing significant economic damage. Additionally, the state has slapped cases and implicated the members of the Muslim community, even in instances where they are victims of violence during communal riots. The disproportionate and seemingly one-sided state action has led to social discord, communal consciousness, and polarization. This atmosphere of communal tension has been steadily intensifying over recent years. For instance, the Pew Research Center, a respected research institution, categorized India in 2022 as “very high” on its Social Hostilities Index (SHI), with a score of 9.3. Social hostilities index (SHI) factors in levels of religion-related harassment, mob violence, terrorism, militant activity, and conflicts over religious conversions or the use of religious symbols and attire.” This also tracks with the India Hate Lab report, which stated that there was a 74.4% surge in hate speech in 2024, driven by the BJP, Hindutva outfits, and unchecked social media amplification.

Media, politics, and the act of communalisation

India has noticed a growing entrenchment of the systematisation of communalism and ensuing violence over the last decade. However, this is not a singular event that has stemmed from uniquely specific factors. This is a product of the country’s long history of communal tensions and Hindutva outfits’ responsibility in stoking the fires in ensuring that said tensions evolve into deeper, more dangerous rifts whose brunt is borne by the Muslim civilians in the country. Tanika Sarkar, well-known intellectual and former professor at the Jawaharlal Nehru University – who has written largely on Indian politics, society and religion, told DW, a global news TV program broadcast by German public state-owned international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW). “What happens is that war does not immediately translate into violence at home but it translates into very bitter memories and histories and allegations. I don’t know how it is on the Pakistani side, I suppose very much the same thing … In the latest conflict in particular, India’s news channels did not help. Between May 8 and May 10, some of the most viewed channels reported sensational, unverified information which later turned out to be false. That, coupled with messages circulated on WhatsApp, created an environment of fear. This is a situation where you can’t believe or disbelieve anything. And in that situation if you are so minded, then you will start looking at every Muslim with suspicion … Even if these attacks aren’t the norm, they create a psyche of fear in the hearts of every Muslim who lives in India.” CJP has, in a sustained campaign, complained against such media outlets and is pursuing some of these cases with the NBDSA even now.

What Sarkar mentions needs to be highlighted, because Indian news media has attained a near vitriolic status when it comes to war-mongering and proselytizing Islamophobia. TV anchors called for “Israel-like final solutions” and repeatedly attempted to mobilize public opinion against a possible ceasefire. The attitude of the unprofessional conduct of entrenched electronic media channels was a subject matter of comment on international media. Political commentators trying to provide more nuanced takes on the situation at hand were silenced or side-lined. Nupur J. Sharma, editor of OpIndia, tweeted, ““Nobody cares. keep your candles. Keep your apples. Keep your shawls. Keep your Kashmiriyat. Stop the bloody drama,” in response to a candle march held by Kashmiris in condemnation of the attack.

Columnist and political researcher Asim Ali wrote for The Telegraph, “The function of the communally-coded messaging broadcast on news channels is not to ‘reflect’ the anger of the audience, as they claim. It is to create and sustain an angry, communal subject that identifies with the incendiary scripts and is conditioned to demand revenge on a shady ‘Muslim’ enemy as well as its political supporters. It is to reinforce the authority of the political executive even though it has failed to fulfil the substantive demands of the citizenry, now transformed into a passive Hindu audience with its exogenously- seeded communal demands.

Historical Context

Ali writes, “The foundational moment of the present regime can, arguably, be located in the 2002 Gujarat riots where this political experiment of constructing and exorcising a Muslim enemy had been carried out to fruition. That experiment culminated in the re-election of the Modi-led state government over thousands of dead bodies. We have already seen several reports of attacks on Kashmiri students by right-wing vigilantes from different states in the last few days.” Ali connecting Pahalgam to the Gujarat riots is very well-founded, because this chamber of violence is not neo-natal in its construction. It has been tried, tested and perfected over decades of institutionalizing codes of conduct of perpetuating harm towards the Islamic “other”.

To contextualize this further, one could look at the media coverage of the 2002 riots and the differences in its approach. In the Concerned Citizens Tribunal Report, Crimes Against Humanity released in November 2002, the Tribunal noted, “On February 28, the two largest circulation, multiple-edition Gujarati newspapers, Sandesh and  Gujarat Samachar, which are fairly dependent on the state government’s largesse, played up the unsubstantiated official version of there being a ‘foreign hand’ behind the Godhra tragedy. It was only 3-4 weeks later that reports rubbishing this theory began to appear in newspapers. But by that time, the damage had already been done. Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar have been playing a blatantly communal role since the BJP returned to power in Gujarat in 1998. The BJP government’s patronage of these dailies needs to be looked into carefully, so that they do not continue to act as mere government agents. In the recent carnage, too, the role of Sandesh was particularly mischievous, while some smaller circulation newspapers like Gujarat Today, Sadhbhav and Gujarat Mitra acted responsibly.”

A study done by Saifuddin Ahmed titled The Role of the Media during Communal Riots in India points out that national television media coverage of the riots had been “bold and independent” with journalists like Rajdeep Sardesai and Barkha Dutt at Star News repeatedly condemning the victimisation of the Muslims in Gujarat during the riots. Print publications like The Times of India and The Indian Express carried headlines that highlighted the atrocities faced by the Muslim communities. This of course resulted in them receiving a lot of flak from the BJP administration in Gujarat and the centre. According to Ahmed, “The Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, addressed the nation a day after the attacks, regretting the “disgraceful” violence. He later on added that the news media were presenting an “exaggerated” account of the situation in Gujarat. The BJP and the state government under Narendra Modi singled out STAR News and banned cable operators from showing the channel in the state. The viewers in Ahmedabad, one of the worst affected regions in the riots, were left with blank television screens, unaware of the reality happening on the streets. Cable operators received calls from local officials in Ahmedabad and other cities to completely blackout STAR News, Zee News, CNN and Aaj Tak. Dossiers and “hitlists” on journalists were reportedly prepared while the channels which dared to reveal the truth and were critical of the Chief Minister and his plan of actions were not invited to the press conferences and hence were denied the basic right to information by the state itself.”

One sees this model amplified in its worst possible form with – whose control is currently concentrated in the hands of corporate conglomerates with firm affiliations to the Indian state apparatus. This facilitation of the development of a monolithic opinion that centralizes hate is strengthened by the hostile crackdown on independent media outlets covering communal hatred and opposing the regime’s machinery. Over the course of the last month, the websites of multiple independent news media platforms such as that of The Wire, Maktoob Media, have been blocked by the government. One could also think of the temporarily blocking of the X account of Anuradha Bhasin, editor of Kashmir Times. In the last few years, the Indian government has zeroed down on completely dismantling press freedom by revoking non-profit status from independent news media outlets, routinely charging journalists with sedition and terrorism – and even monitoring them with the Israeli spyware, Pegasus. One must also remember, that several of the most powerful accused of the Gujarat riots have been released, and now roam free, having escaped through loopholes and intentional pardoning.

This however does not absolve less powerful or non-media actors of their role in furthering the bile of “revenge”. Al Jazeera found almost 20 songs that built on Hindutva-aligning sentiments that were meant to be incendiary. While H-Pop (Hindutva Pop) with a high degree of hate content has been a visible phenomenon over the past decade, Caravan and CJP have analysed these, Pahalgam gave this new hate music market a new focus and twist. All of these songs infiltrated into the timelines of Indian social media users, with outright calls for Hindus to identify the “traitors within the country”. At the same time, politicians and members of the Hindu right continued with the single focus agenda which is to lace every issue, every speech with its own peculiar dose of targeted hate.

According to our data, there were over 100 instances of hate speeches in the country. Here is an example, on May 5, in Bankura, West Bengal BJP MP Saumitra Khan, while submitting a memorandum demanding the deportation of alleged Pakistani nationals residing in the state, “urged Hindus to sell their land and houses only to fellow Hindus. He alleged that once their children move away and they pass away, Rohingyas would eventually occupy their homes”. In another instance, on May 4, BJP MLA Ravinder Singh Negi, “speaking at a religious event in a temple, claimed that Muslims train their children to become extremists in madrasas instead of providing them with proper education. He questioned why Hindus could not raise their children as extremists in temples. He also invoked the Pahalgam attack and dog-whistled for a boycott of those he described as ‘traitors’ within the country.”

One often sees politicians attributing the rise in communalism to the populace, rather than the multiple perpetrators of the same. Here, we could think of the concept of Astroturfing — which “is the deceptive practice of hiding the sponsors of an orchestrated message or organization (e.g., political, economic, advertising, religious, or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from, and is supported by, unsolicited grassroots participants.” This could simply be translated to this: it is a process where a top-down method of dissemination is falsely recognised or propagated as a bottom-up one. If we were to integrate this conceptual framework with what Nalin Mehta writes in Modi and the Camera: The Politics of Television in the 2002 Gujarat Riots — “For our purpose, John B. Thompson’s notion of ‘mediated communication’, where he taps into the hermeneutic tradition to postulate that individuals are not passive recipients of symbolic messages from the communication media, is also pertinent. Messages from the mass media are received in settings spatially and temporally remote from the original context of production and the recipient’s own assumptions and expectations regulate how they are interpreted and appropriated,” – we would understand why things are the way they happen to be.

Responses

The institutional / state response to most of these hate crimes have not been very appropriate, with an observable systemic apathy in the nature of action taken by the administration / police forces. Most Chief Ministers of the states in question have not addressed the rising  tensions within their respective states, instead focusing on urging for befitting replies and prices that need to be paid. The police have been no better, in most cases being entirely absent from the scenes of violence, in others being complicit in institutional violence.

Graph representing the response of police in respective cases of hate crimes

Out of 180 data entries that were made situations where it was
Unclear if there was a case filed: 135 cases
Institutional Violence: 7 cases
Appropriate / Immediate police action: 15 cases
Definitively no case filed: 6
Police took action that harmed the Muslim victim: 17 cases

Out of the 39 cases that had clear police involvement, 53% or 24 of those cases were ones where the police were complicit outright. The other thing to be mentioned here is in all the cases where we are dealing with unclear police involvement, we are unsure whether no case has been filed or whether attempts were made and then rejected.

The worst affected, however, have been Kashmiris and Kashmiri Muslims, in particular. Following the Pahalgam attack, surveillance has intensified in Kashmir. According to Kashmir Times, “In the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, security forces have launched extensive operations across Kashmir, demolishing about a dozen houses using explosives and conducting widespread searches and detentions. At least 1500 people are said to have been detained. The demolitions have occurred in multiple districts including Pulwama, Shopian, Anantnag, Kupwara, and Bandipora”.  There have been multiple incidents of Kashmiri students being harassed in other states, creating an almost paranoid sense of hypervigilance among these individuals. Kashmiri businessmen have also found themselves in trouble, where selling their wares has become near-impossible within the current climate.

Mirza Waheed, writer born in Srinagar, Kashmir, wrote for The Guardian, “Kashmiris have never wanted to be a bone of contention between the two states; they have paid a staggeringly steep price for this 75-year relationship of attrition. Internally, Kashmir has never really been normal, despite the narrative push and despite the appearance of normality, scripted elsewhere and executed on the ground through a security-administrative complex. Underneath the quiet, there is growing resentment at what Kashmiris see as their incremental and cumulative dispossession and disempowerment, in the form of new domicile and land laws, and in the absence of any real representational politics. Human rights activists, journalists and politicians remain in jail under harsh anti-terror laws. Nobody is allowed to speak; surveillance is probably at its highest since the start of the armed insurgency in the late 1980s; a previously independent and robust press has almost entirely been forced into a supine, compliant role. Most accounts from Kashmir speak of suppressed anger at the growing powerlessness and the humiliating deprivation of agency. Many Kashmiris talk about dham, a quiet, bruising suffocation, with no space to breathe. That all this is fertile ground for militancy is hardly a surprise, whether local or Pakistan-sponsored.”

All seems to remain unwell, in the land of what has turned out to be the homeland of misdiagnosed glory and gore.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this graphic visualisation report has been worked on by Saptaparma Samajdar)

Sources

1. https://m.thewire.in/article/media/communalisation-pahalgam-reinforcing-anti-muslim-sentiment
2. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/29/traitors-hate-filled-songs-target-indian-muslims-after-kashmir-attack
3. https://muslimmirror.com/right-wing-media-channels-peddle-anti-muslim-narratives-after-pahalgam-attack/
4. https://www.deccanherald.com/india/uttarakhand/uttarakhand-cm-condemns-terror-attack-in-jks-pahalgam-3505295
5. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/kashmir-domicile-law-raises-fears-of-losing-land-culture-idUSKCN24T007/
6. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/country-specialists/five-years-silence-and-struggle-kashmir
7. https://article-14.com/post/-what-did-i-do-after-pahalgam-attack-kashmiri-students-in-at-least-4-northern-states-face-intimidation-threats-isolation–680b16d1a8d53
8. https://www.thehindu.com/education/pahalgam-attack-casts-a-shadow-over-jammu-and-kashmir-students-outside-state/article69531760.ece
9. https://www.dw.com/en/india-pakistan-conflict-risks-deepening-religious-tensions/a-72529635
10. https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1080/00856400601031989
11. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/05/03/india-media-freedom-under-threat#:~:text=Amid%20growing%20restrictions%20on%20media,spyware%20Pegasus%20to%20target%20journalists.
12. https://cjp.org.in/role-of-the-media-how-hate-was-spread-in-2002-in-gujarat/

The post CJP breaks down post-Pahalgam hate attacks through graphics and data appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Hindustan Times report triggers response

Sibal’s comments came in the wake of a June 9 Hindustan Times report which revealed that the Supreme Court had initiated preparations for an in-house inquiry against Justice Yadav — who allegedly made communal and Islamophobic remarks at a Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) event in December 2023 — but dropped the plan after receiving a categorical communication from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat asserting exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. Sources cited in the report claimed that then CJI Sanjiv Khanna had begun preliminary steps based on an adverse report from the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, but halted the process following a letter from the Secretariat claiming that the matter was already under parliamentary consideration.

Sibal: “This is discriminatory and constitutionally perverse”

Sibal minced no words in calling out what he viewed as an institutional derailment of accountability. “This is very unfortunate and smacks of discrimination,” Sibal said during the press conference. “The in-house procedure has nothing to do with the impeachment motion. It’s an internal judicial process initiated by the Chief Justice of India to assess whether allegations warrant further action. By informing the Supreme Court that the motion was pending in the Rajya Sabha — despite it not even being admitted — the Chairman effectively paralysed the judiciary’s internal scrutiny mechanism.”

He reminded the public that the impeachment motion was submitted on December 13, 2024, bearing 55 signatures — more than the required 50 under the Judges (Inquiry) Act. Yet, he noted, the Rajya Sabha Secretariat has still not completed signature verification, nearly six months later.

“How long does it take to verify 55 signatures?” he asked. “Why is this process being deliberately delayed? Is the government trying to protect Justice Yadav, who is set to retire in early 2026?”

On Justice Yadav’s speech and Supreme Court’s role

Justice Yadav’s speech, delivered on December 8, 2023, at a VHP event, stirred nationwide controversy. During the speech, Justice Yadav declared that “this is Hindustan” and that the country must run according to the majority, while endorsing the Uniform Civil Code and making derogatory comparisons between Hindu and Muslim personal laws. His statements were widely seen as communal in nature. (Detailed report may be read here and here.)

Sibal pointed out that the Supreme Court had taken note of the speech and sought an explanation from Justice Yadav. The Allahabad High Court Chief Justice reportedly submitted a negative report, further warranting an in-house investigation. However, Sibal noted that after Rajya Sabha Chairperson Dhankhar told Parliament on February 13, 2025, that the matter should be left to Parliament, the Supreme Court backed off.

“This subversion of the in-house procedure — which exists precisely to safeguard constitutional standards in the judiciary — is deeply concerning,” said Sibal. “It shows that the Government and Parliament are stifling independent judicial mechanisms.”

Impeachment panel may be formed

A June 10 Indian Express report suggested that Rajya Sabha Chairman may now be considering constituting a committee to examine the charges against Justice Yadav. The report confirms that the signature verification process is still ongoing, and that one signature was duplicated due to a clerical error — though Opposition sources, according to the report, insist that the requisite number remains intact.

Dhankhar had earlier stated in Parliament on March 21 that two rounds of emails were sent to MPs for signature verification. “One member denied having signed, and his name appears twice,” Dhankhar had said, implying that further scrutiny was needed.

Opposition sources. According to the IE report, explained that multiple sets of representation papers had been prepared and circulated for the motion, and the duplication was a result of confusion — not fraud. “Even if one signature is invalid, there are still more than 50 valid ones. The threshold is met,” a source said.

Sibal warns against using in-house procedure to remove Justice Yashwant Varma

In an important aside, Sibal also raised serious concerns about reports that the Government is trying to remove Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma using the findings of an in-house committee report, without invoking the Judges (Inquiry) Act. “If that is true, it’s completely unconstitutional. The in-house report is meant only for the CJI, not for executive action or removal proceedings,” he warned.

“This sets a dangerous precedent. If judges can be removed on the basis of in-house reports alone, judicial independence is in grave peril. There’s a constitutional process under Article 124 and the Judges (Inquiry) Act. Skipping that is a clear overreach by the executive,” Sibal asserted.

Targeting judiciary, shielding allies?

Sibal also took aim at Vice President Dhankhar’s selective outrage, referring to his recent criticism of the Supreme Court’s use of Article 142 in the Tamil Nadu Governor-Bill Assent matter. Dhankhar had accused the Supreme Court of treating Article 142 like a “nuclear missile” and questioned whether timelines could be imposed on constitutional authorities like the President and Governors.

“Today, we are talking about the same thing,” Sibal retorted. “No Court can force the Chairman to admit an impeachment motion within a certain timeline — but equally, the Chairman cannot use that discretion to permanently stall a constitutional process. Six months have passed without even verifying signatures. Is this constitutional silence — or constitutional sabotage?”

Legal and constitutional context

Under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, a Supreme Court judge can be removed for “proved misbehavior or incapacity” following a parliamentary inquiry and approval by a two-thirds majority in both Houses. The same provision applies to High Court judges via Article 218.

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 sets out the procedure: at least 50 Rajya Sabha MPs or 100 Lok Sabha MPs must submit a notice for impeachment. Upon prima facie satisfaction, the Chairman/Speaker constitutes a three-member inquiry committee.

Sibal emphasised that the in-house mechanism developed by the Supreme Court is entirely independent of this process — it is an internal ethical accountability measure, not a substitute for impeachment, nor subordinate to Parliament.

Conclusion

Sibal’s remarks underscore deep concerns about political interference in judicial accountability mechanisms and what appears to be deliberate inertia in processing a serious impeachment motion. As Parliament prepares for the Monsoon Session on July 21, all eyes will be on whether Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar finally takes forward the motion — or continues to allow what Sibal has described as a “dangerous constitutional standstill” to persist.

Related:

Does India have a lawfully established procedure on ‘deportation’, or are actions governed by Executive secrecy and overreach?

Justice Yadav, a sitting HC judge, and his speech at VHP event that was riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones

SC Collegium summons Allahabad HC Judge, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav over remarks on Muslims

Impeach the Judge, INDIA bloc set to move impeachment motion against HC judge who made communal hate-speeches

The post Kapil Sibal slams Rajya Sabha chairman for stalling impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Yadav, calls it a blow to judicial accountability appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In no uncertain terms, the division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Anuradha Shukla delivered a stinging rebuke to the State, noting that the FIR had been crafted in a manner designed not to prosecute, but to protect. The Court pointed out that paragraph 12 of the FIR—expected to lay out the minister’s actions and how they constituted the offences alleged—merely reproduced the concluding paragraph of the Court’s own order from the previous day, while omitting all factual and legal reasoning. This omission, the Court warned, opened the door for the FIR to be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (the successor to Section 482 CrPC), effectively nullifying the judicial process.

What emerged from the May 15 hearing was the Court’s growing scepticism about the willingness of the State police to independently and impartially investigate a sitting Cabinet Minister. The bench did not shy away from calling out the subversion of process and the appearance of executive shielding. While stopping short of naming officials responsible for what it called a “clumsy attempt,” the Court made it clear that further proceedings would examine the chain of command involved in drafting the FIR.

To safeguard the integrity of the investigation, the Court took the extraordinary step of directing that its entire order from May 14 be treated as part of the FIR. It also announced that it would now monitor the investigation to ensure that the case is not quietly buried under bureaucratic evasions or political pressure. This order is not just a procedural correction—it is a firm statement that the judiciary will not tolerate the erosion of accountability when hate speech and communal slander are weaponised by those in public office.

Details of what transpired in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, along with the Supreme Court, are below.

May 15- Madhya Pradesh High Court slams state police for ‘Gross Subterfuge’ in FIR

I. The Hearing: Sharp rebuke to state over subversion of process

On May 15, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court came down heavily on the state police for the manner in which it had complied with the Court’s earlier order to lodge an FIR against sitting BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for his offensive remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Anuradha Shukla made it unequivocally clear that the Court would not allow the investigation to be derailed or diluted.

According to the report of LiveLaw, the High Court expressed deep dissatisfaction with the contents of the FIR, criticising it for being drafted in a manner so skeletal and vague that it invited quashing. “I’m sure you’ve read it,” the bench remarked to the Advocate General. “It has been drafted in such a way that it can be quashed. Where are the ingredients? Who drafted this?” The bench questioned how an FIR could be considered valid when it lacked any specific mention of the minister’s actions or how those actions fulfilled the ingredients of the offences invoked.

While the Advocate General submitted that the state had complied with the Court’s May 14 direction and even handed over a copy of the FIR, the bench was not convinced. The Court pointed out that paragraph 12 of the FIR — which should have detailed the accused’s actions and how they constitute the alleged offences — was nothing more than a mechanical reproduction of the Court’s earlier order. Crucially, it failed to reflect the parts of that order that laid out the specific conduct of the accused and the legal basis for charging him under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The bench called this omission a deliberate design, a “gross subterfuge” meant to weaken the case and insulate the minister from future prosecution. “This FIR has been registered in such a manner…so that if it is challenged under erstwhile section 482 of CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS), it may be quashed,” the Court noted sharply, as per the report of LiveLaw,

Despite submissions by Advocate General Prashant Singh assuring the Court that the state had no intention to shield the minister and would comply with all directions, the Court made clear that intent alone could not cure procedural sabotage. It remarked that it would be forced to monitor the investigation, not to interfere with the agency’s independence, but to ensure that the probe was not tainted by extraneous influences or politically motivated pressures.

II. The Order: Blistering indictment and judicial safeguards

Later that evening, the High Court’s written order laid bare the extent of its disapproval. In no uncertain terms, the bench described the FIR as an exercise in deliberate obfuscation, aimed at frustrating the judicial process.

“This Court has examined paragraph-12 of the FIR, which must necessarily lay down the ingredients of the offence by connecting it to the act of the offender. The FIR is brief. Having gone through the FIR in its entirety, there is not a single mention of the actions of the suspect, which would satisfy the ingredients of the offences which have been registered against him,” the Court noted in the FIR.

Notably, Section 152 of the BNS, notably, criminalises any speech or act that incites secessionist sentiments or undermines national unity — an offence punishable with up to life imprisonment. Sections 196(1)(b) and 197(1)(c) further address attempts to incite communal disharmony and acts against national integration. These provisions relate to acts endangering India’s sovereignty and integrity, disturbing communal harmony, and undermining national integration — all serious charges triggered by Shah’s remarks describing Colonel Qureshi as a “sister of terrorists”.

However, the FIR, the Court noted, was drafted to look superficially compliant while omitting essential content that could withstand judicial scrutiny. In a scathing indictment, the bench wrote:

“This FIR has been registered in such a manner leaving sufficient space open so that if it is challenged under erstwhile section 482 of Cr.P.C (section 528 BNSS), the same may be quashed because it is deficient in material particulars of the actions which constitutes each of the specific offences. This is gross subterfuge on the part of the of the State. The FIR has been drawn in a manner so as to assist the suspect Mr. Vijay Shah to be able to have the FIR quashed on a later date.”

The Court declined, for now, to name those responsible for what it termed a “clumsy attempt” to dilute accountability, but made clear that it would examine this further in subsequent proceedings.

“At this juncture this Court desists from embarking on a journey to find out as to who was responsible in the chain of command of the State police for this clumsy attempt. This Court shall endeavour to find out the same in future proceedings.”

To safeguard the case from being derailed, the Court issued a unique direction:

“However, in order to ensure that said subterfuge is nipped in the bud, this Court directs that the entire order of 14.05.2025 shall be read as part of paragraph 12 of the FIR for all judicial, quasi-judicial and investigating process henceforth.”

This directive ensures that the contents of the Court’s earlier order — including its detailed reasoning on how Shah’s remarks constitute criminal acts — are deemed to be part of the FIR itself, immunising it from legal infirmities arising from the police’s omissions.

Lastly, recognising the sensitivity and seriousness of the matter, the Court announced that it would continue to monitor the investigation. While clarifying that this would not impinge on the police’s autonomy, the bench made it clear that judicial oversight was now essential to ensure a fair and unbiased probe.

“In view of the nature of the case and the manner in which the FIR has been registered, which does not inspire confidence of this Court, and the Court is of the opinion that if the case is not duly monitored, the police would not investigate fairly in the interest of justice in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, this Court feels compelled to ensure that it monitors the investigation without interfering in the independence of the investigating agency but only to the extent of monitoring that it acts fairly in accordance with law without being influenced by any extraneous pressures or directions.”

The matter is scheduled to be listed immediately after the vacation, ensuring continuity in judicial supervision.

Key findings of the Court through its order:

1. Failure to articulate offence

The Court unequivocally states that the FIR, while brief, omits the essential content required to constitute a valid FIR under law. Paragraph 12 of the FIR, which should describe the suspect’s actions in terms of legal ingredients, is merely a reproduction of the final operative part of the Court’s own order from May 14 2025.

2. Strategic deficiency and subterfuge

The Court goes beyond identifying technical gaps and alleges intentional subversion of judicial direction, and does not merely suggest incompetence; it attributes intent—asserting that the FIR was drawn up in a way designed to assist the accused in securing a quashing of the FIR at a later date.

3. Postponed attribution of responsibility

While noting that the drafting of the FIR amounted to a “clumsy attempt,” the Court refrains from immediately naming those responsible within the police hierarchy. However, it clearly reserves its right to do so in the future.

4. Judicial incorporation of prior order into FIR

In a decisive move to prevent the FIR from being rendered legally ineffective, the Court directs that its order dated May 14, 2025 be treated as part of the FIR. This step is unusual and noteworthy. Courts typically do not rewrite executive documents. By judicially supplementing the FIR with its own prior reasoning, the Court ensures that the FIR now contains the essential legal and factual ingredients to support the investigation and prosecution.

5. Judicial monitoring of investigation

The Court, expressing a clear lack of confidence in the police to act fairly without oversight, announces its intention to monitor the investigation. One should note that the same is not interference with investigative autonomy but a supervisory mechanism to preserve the integrity of the process. The Court’s language carefully respects the institutional independence of the police while simultaneously asserting the necessity of judicial vigilance.

The complete order may be read below.

May 15- Supreme Court declines interim relief to BJP Minister Vijay Shah

On May 15, the Supreme Court declined to grant interim relief to BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah in connection with the FIR registered against him for his inflammatory remark referring to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as a “sister of terrorists.” The FIR had been filed following a suo motu direction by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The matter came up through an urgent mentioning by Senior Advocate Vibha Makhija, representing Shah, who questioned the maintainability of the High Court’s suo motu order and urged the apex court to intervene. However, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, heading the bench along with Justice AG Masih, refused to interfere at this stage. CJI Gavai made a pointed observation:

“A person holding such an office is expected to maintain a certain standard. Every sentence uttered by a minister carries responsibility.”

Makhija informed the bench that Shah had already issued an apology and claimed his remark had been widely misinterpreted and taken out of context by the media. She requested that no coercive action be taken against him until he is heard.

However, as per the report of LiveLaw, the Court was told that an FIR had already been registered. In response, the bench declined to pass any interim orders and directed Shah to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court for appropriate relief, noting:

“Go and apply to the High Court. We will have it tomorrow.”

The Supreme Court thus refused to stay the proceedings or provide protection at this stage, keeping the door open for judicial review by the High Court. The matter is likely to be taken up again shortly.

May 14– MP HC orders FIR for hate-laden remarks against Col. Sofiya Qureshi

I. The Hearing: Unparalleled judicial censure against BJP Minister’s “disparaging” speech

On May 14, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took suo motu cognisance of a highly offensive remark made by BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah. The Court acted swiftly and firmly, ordering the immediate registration of an FIR against the Minister under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The division bench, comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Anuradha Shukla, unequivocally condemned the Minister’s statement as not only “disparaging” and “dangerous” but also constituting “language of the gutters.” It held that the remarks went far beyond personal insult and, in fact, were a grave denigration of the Indian Armed Forces as an institution.

The Court emphasised the importance of the armed forces as perhaps the country’s last bastion of integrity, discipline, sacrifice, selflessness, and courage—qualities which any patriotic citizen must hold dear. It noted with particular gravity that Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh had been the visible face of the armed forces’ briefing to the media and the nation during Operation Sindoor, the military operation against Pakistan. Therefore, the Minister’s remarks targeted not just the officer but the very honour and dignity of the armed forces. The Court described Shah’s comments as “unpardonable” innuendo aimed squarely at Colonel Qureshi.

On the legal front, the Court carefully examined the prima facie applicability of the offences alleged against Shah under the BNS, 2023. It held that Section 152, which criminalises acts that threaten the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, was clearly attracted. The Court reasoned that by labelling Col. Qureshi—an officer who is Muslim—as the “sister of terrorists,” Shah implicitly encouraged separatist sentiments and suspicion against Muslims, thereby endangering national unity. The remark, the Court observed, imputes a separatist identity to anyone belonging to the Muslim faith, a dangerous insinuation with the potential to undermine the country’s sovereignty.

Further, the Court found that Section 196(1)(b), which punishes acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between religious, racial, linguistic, or regional groups, was triggered. It observed that deriding Col. Qureshi on communal grounds could disturb the delicate social fabric and public tranquillity. By invoking her religious identity in a disparaging way, Shah’s remarks risked fuelling communal tensions.

The Court also held that Section 197(1)(c) was prima facie attracted. This provision criminalises any assertion or plea that causes or is likely to cause enmity or ill-will between communities. The Court noted that the Minister’s comments had the clear “propensity” to stir disharmony and hatred between members of the Muslim community and others, regardless of the selfless service of individuals like Col. Qureshi.

In light of these serious prima facie findings, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, to register an FIR against Minister Shah forthwith—no later than that very evening. It warned that failure to comply would lead to proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against the DGP. The Advocate General was instructed to immediately transmit the Court’s order to the police authorities and ensure compliance.

The report of the LiveLaw provided that Justice Sreedharan, while addressing the Advocate General during the hearing, expressed impatience with any delay, stating with striking urgency:

“Register, register right now… I may not be alive tomorrow… I am giving you four hours… Let this order be stayed by the Supreme Court, or be complied with by tomorrow.”

When the Advocate General suggested that the Court’s findings were based mainly on media reports and that the statements might have been misunderstood or taken out of context, the Court decisively rejected this. It said it had itself reviewed the video of the remarks and would incorporate the YouTube links into the order, explicitly calling Shah’s speech “venom” and underscoring the seriousness with which it was treating the matter.

This unequivocal and stern order demonstrated the Court’s resolve to uphold the sanctity of the armed forces and the rule of law against hate speech, especially when it emanates from individuals holding public office. By acting suo motu and invoking relevant provisions of the BNS, the Court sent a clear signal that communal slander, particularly from politicians, will not be tolerated and must be met with swift judicial action.

The Court’s approach also underscored the constitutional principle that freedom of speech carries responsibility—especially for public figures whose words can inflame division and undermine national integration. This decision reinforced the judiciary’s role as a vigilant guardian against hate speech and communal disharmony, affirming that the armed forces deserve the highest respect and protection from defamatory and incendiary remarks.

II. The Order: A constitutional rebuke against hate and slur by a Minister

In its order dated May 14, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued a powerful and unequivocal direction to register an FIR against BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for publicly calling Colonel Sofiya Qureshi a “sister of terrorists.” Triggered by media reports and publicly available video footage, the Court acted suo-motu, viewing the Minister’s speech as not only deeply offensive but also a prima facie criminal act under the BNS 2023.

At the heart of the order is the Court’s scathing assessment that Shah’s words were more than a personal insult—they amounted to an attack on the institutional honour of the Indian Armed Forces. The bench described the Minister’s language as “scurrilous,” “disparaging,” “dangerous,” and “language of the gutters.” The Court further held that the attack was not isolated but directly aimed at a senior military officer who was publicly representing the armed forces during a sensitive national operation, Operation Sindoor.

“The armed forces, perhaps the last institution existing in this country, reflecting integrity, industry, discipline, sacrifice, selflessness, character, honour and indomitable courage with which any citizen of this country who values the same can identify themselves with, has been targeted by Mr. Vijay Shah who has used the language of the gutters against Col. Sofia Quraishi.” (Para 2)

Drawing from news reports and video material, the Court found that Shah’s reference to Col. Quraishi as the “sister of terrorists” who killed 26 Indians at Pahalgam was not vague or general—it was a clear innuendo directed at her, as she was the only person who matched the description in the speech. The Court remarked that Shah had, in effect, suggested that the Prime Minister had “sent the sister of terrorists to sort them out,” a statement that it found both incendiary and deeply damaging to public confidence in the armed forces.

“At that public function, he has referred to Col. Sofia Quraishi as the sister of the terrorists who carried out the killings of 26 innocent Indians at Pahalgam. Further, the newspaper reports and a plethora of digital material available on the internet in which the speech of the minister is clear and unequivocal, where he has referred to the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narendra Modi, for having sent the sister of the terrorists to sort them out. His comments are disparaging and dangerous, not just to the officer in question but to the armed forces itself.” (Para 3)

In its legal analysis, the Court invoked three provisions of the BNS and held that all three were prima facie attracted.

Section 152 BNS, which deals with acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, was the first invoked. The Court found that by insinuating that a Muslim Army officer was affiliated with terrorists, the Minister had encouraged feelings of separatist activity and undermined national unity. The Court emphasised that imputing separatist sentiment to Muslims serving in the armed forces is both unconstitutional and subversive:

“Prima facie, the statement of the minister that Col. Sofia Quraishi is the sister of the terrorist who carried out the attack at Pahalgam encourages feelings of separatist activities by imputing separatist feeling to anyone who is Muslim, which thereby endangers the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India.” (Para 6)

Section 196 (1)(b) BNS, which penalises acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different communities, was the second provision cited. The Court noted that the Minister’s remark could give rise to the perception that Muslims, regardless of their loyalty or contribution to the nation, remain forever suspect. This, the Court held, was likely to disturb public tranquillity and reinforce religious fault lines.

“Prima facie, this section would be applicable as Col. Sofia Quraishi is an adherent of the Muslim faith and deriding her by referring to her as the sister of terrorists may be prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religions groups as it has the propensity to fuel an impression that irrespective of the selfless duties of a person towards India, such a person could still be derided only because that person belongs to the Muslim faith. Therefore, prima facie, this Court is satisfied that the offence under Section 196(1)(b) is also committed.” (Para 8)

Section 197(1)(c) BNS, which criminalises assertions likely to cause disharmony between religious groups, was also found to be applicable. The Court stated that the Minister’s remarks had the potential to deepen religious division and provoke hostility between communities, especially by invoking a communal stereotype in a public and inflammatory setting.

“The statement made by Minister Vijay Shah prima facie has the propensity to cause disharmony and feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between the members of the Muslim faith and other persons who do not belong to the same religion.” (Para 10)

On the strength of these findings, the Court directed the Director General of Police to register an FIR against Vijay Shah under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) BNS forthwith, by the evening of May 14. It made clear that non-compliance would invite contempt proceedings.

“On the basis of what has been observed herein above this Court directs the Director General of Police of Madhya Pradesh to register forthwith an FIR against Minister Vijay Shah for offences under Sections 152, 196(1)(b) and 197(1)(c) of the B.N.S. The same must be done by today evening, failing which tomorrow, when the matter is listed, the Court may contemplate proceeding against the Director General of Police of the State for contempt of this Order.” (Para 11)

Further, the Court directed the Advocate General’s office to transmit the order immediately to the DGP and asked the Registrar (IT) to collect and place on record the video links of Shah’s speech for the next day’s proceedings.

Key findings of the Court through its order:

1. Use of suo-motu powers to uphold constitutional integrity: The Court acted on its own motion, recognising that the matter was too serious to wait for a formal complaint. This reinforces the judiciary’s role in addressing hate speech by those in public office.
2. Characterisation of the armed forces as a constitutional institution under attack: The Court positioned the armed forces as a symbol of national values, and it viewed any attempt to denigrate them—especially by communalising their members—as a grave constitutional breach.
3. Identification of communal intent and legal applicability of BNS provisions: The Court methodically applied new penal code provisions and found that Shah’s statement not only offended basic decency but, prima facie, satisfied the legal requirements for offences threatening national integrity and communal harmony.
4. Urgency and judicial accountability: The Court gave the State police a same-day deadline for FIR registration and made clear that non-compliance would be treated as contempt of court. This reflects a demand for immediate accountability from state institutions.
5. Condemnation of political hate speech: The order sends a strong signal that hateful, communal rhetoric by elected representatives—especially when directed at uniformed officers—is not protected political expression, but punishable criminal conduct.

The order stands as a significant constitutional moment: a court drawing the line where political speech turns into criminal propaganda, and affirming that even the highest offices must answer to the law.

The complete order may be read here.

Background

On May 14, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took up the matter on its own motion after coming across disturbing reports in multiple newspapers and digital platforms. News items published in Patrika, Dainik Bhaskar (Jabalpur edition), and Nai Duniya on the same date, along with video footage circulating online—including a YouTube link cited by the Court—revealed that a sitting minister in the Madhya Pradesh government, Vijay Shah, had made an offensive and communal remark during a public function held in Raikunda village, Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow.

The remark in question was aimed at Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, a senior officer in the Indian Army. Referring to her indirectly but unmistakably, Minister Shah called her the “sister of the terrorists” responsible for the killings in Pahalgam, in an apparent reference to her role as one of the Army’s spokespersons during Operation Sindoor. The Court noted that the language used was not only scurrilous and derogatory but also carried dangerous communal undertones. It held that the speech did not merely target an individual officer, but amounted to a broader attack on the armed forces—an institution that, the Court observed, still embodies values such as discipline, sacrifice, and integrity.

In view of the serious nature of the comment and the threat it posed to communal harmony and institutional dignity, the Court initiated proceedings without waiting for a formal complaint.

Related:

Trolled for Duty: Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri locks X account amid right-wing abuse over India-Pakistan ceasefire

Trolled for Duty: Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri locks X account amid right-wing abuse over India-Pakistan ceasefire

A Republic That Listens: The Supreme Court’s poetic defence of dissent through Imran Pratapgarhi judgment

Judicial Setback: Supreme Court dilutes Bombay HC’s bold stand on police accountability in custodial killing in Badlapur case

The post FIR meant to fail: MP High Court calls out state’s attempt to shield BJP minister, in hate speech case, to monitor probe appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The first and foremost basic right is the right to live and respect human life. The holy Quran lays down: “Whosoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind”.

On April 22, India witnessed the unprecedented terror attack that led to the death of 26 innocent civilians in the Baisaran Valley (Kashmir). The five terrorists who were involved in the firing were members of the Resistance Front (TRF), a unit of Laskar-e-Taiba. The group claimed that the attack was in response to the government policy of the Indian government in Kashmir.

In response to the cowardly attack on the civilian, the Indian government has suspended the Indus treaty, expelled Pakistani advisors, cancelled SAARC visas, and closed the Attari border for Pakistani citizens.

The whole country stood in solidarity with the victims and condemned the terror attack in a single voice irrespective of religion or any differences. The prime minister said that ‘India will pursue Kashmir attackers to the end of the earth.’ He further said that the biggest strength in the war against terrorism is the unity of the country and the solidarity of 140 crore Indians.

The Home Minister, Amit Shah, called an all-party meeting to explain the incident and status in the Kashmir Valley. The whole opposition united and gave their unprecedented support to the government, demanding a strict punishment for the terrorist.

The government in the meeting had accepted that there was a security lapse that led to the unprecedented attack that killed 26 civilians and injured more than 20. Since 2019 i.e. after revocation of Article 370, the Modi government has argued Kashmir was returning to normalcy, the attack exposed loopholes in its approach.

The Discrimination faced by Muslims after Pahalgam attack

The whole issue has been diverted to the Hindu-Muslim, Muslim-Pakistan issue in social media. The major reason that needs to be debated on national TV should be what led to this incident, instead of discussing these problems and questioning the security lapse on the part of the government, the whole burden of attack has been shifted on the shoulders of the Muslims.

A post was uploaded on social media ‘X,’ previously Twitter, by the official account of the ruling party BJP’s Chhattisgarh state unit, making a Ghibli image of a woman mourning the death of her husband at the attack site with the caption “Dharm pucha Jaati nahi.”

The rising tide of polarization in India has created an environment where Muslims are often targets of discrimination and hate speech. The question of their faith, religion, and nationalism subjected them to public humiliation.

Various videos and images surfaced on social media wherein hatred was spread against the Muslims and especially the Kashmiri Muslims, portraying them as the accomplices of the attack.

As Indian government forces continue to hunt for the attackers in Kashmir’s dense jungles and mountains, Kashmiris living across India, especially students, have reported heckling, harassment and threats by far-right Hindu groups – or even their classmates.

From Uttarakhand, Punjab, to Uttar Pradesh, landlords are pushing Kashmiri tenants out; and shopkeepers are refusing to trade with them. Several Kashmiri students are sleeping at airports as they try to make their way home.

Areeba, 22 years Kashmiri student said (Reported by Article 14) “we are stuck”. We can’t go outside, and we can’t go home. Even booking a cab to the airport feels like risking our lives,” “I feel like a prisoner here, just because I’m Kashmiri, just because I’m Muslim. This flat that was once my home feels like a cage now.”

A video was released by Hindu Raksha Dal leader Lalit Sharma warning the Kashmiri students to leave the state within the stipulated time or face consequences. The Jammu and Kashmir Students Association (JKSA) claimed that the students received mass threats from the right-wing organization.

Another incident occurred in Kolkata wherein a doctor refused to give treatment to a pregnant Muslim woman, saying, “After the Kashmir incident, I’m not going to treat any Muslim patients.”

All these incidents, led to the brewing of hatred against the Muslims, especially the Kashmiris, across the country, which subsequently led to the atrocities against the Muslims.

Pahalgam Attack casts big shadows on Kashmir’s tourism economy

Kashmir was slowly rebuilding its image as a peaceful tourist destination and bring large investment in the valley after the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019. When Kashmir valley should have encroaching with the laughter of tourist, it was silenced by the gunfire. The attack on innocent civilians on April 22 didn’t just end lives, it ended the season of hope.

Kashmir, which was on the path of development and innovation from conflict to calm, has once again been dragged back by the same old shadows; it’s not just silenced the people but the whole economy of Kashmir.

The right wing openly criticized and boycotted the Kashmiri goods and vendors across the country. The Congress president, Mallika Arjun Kharge, and other MPs from the opposition have raised the similar issue that there are several social media handles that are raising such false narratives against Muslims and Kashmiris, which must be tackled with a hard hand.

Kashmir has been affected by tourism, which is the lifeline of the Kashmiri people. The government of India must provide financial assistance to the local people of Kashmir. In case of unemployment and poverty, the people of Kashmir will lose confidence in the democracy and turn back to militancy once again. If this were to be the case, the objective of repealing Article 370 will fall short in just a minute.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a prominent freedom fighter and first Education Minister of Independent India, while standing on the stairs of Jama Masjid Delhi, addressed the Muslims planning to leave India for Pakistan at the time of partition and said, “Jo chala gaya usey bhool ja, Hind ko apni Jannat bana!  (Forget all those who had left/Treat India as your only trust.”). Muslims are very much Indian by birth and by choice; they have a double claim over the country. The question of their faith and love for this country will weaken the social fabric of this country.

Khan Obaida & Mohd Saem Ansari, currently in his 4^th year pursuing B.A.LL.B from Aligarh Muslim University

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

The post Terrorism’s Shadow: Rising hatred against Indian Muslims after Pahalgam terror attack appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the complaint, Chetan Patel delivered a public speech on April 23, between 7:30 and 8:00 pm at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Chowk, a prominent location in Alibaug, District Raigad. The speech followed the tragic terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, in which several innocent Indians lost their lives. Despite the Muslim community in Alibaug publicly condemning the attack, Patel’s speech reportedly vilified the Muslim community as a whole. In his address, Patel allegedly denounced those who advocated for communal harmony, labelling them “so-called secular bugs,” and called upon Hindus to economically boycott Muslims by refusing to conduct business with them or purchase goods from them.

The complaint asserts that Patel’s speech was not an isolated act but part of a larger attempt to foment hatred and enmity between religious communities. A video clip of the speech was recorded and subsequently circulated on social media platforms, including WhatsApp and Facebook, further amplifying its divisive content. Notably, the clip was uploaded by Suhas Ghanekar on the Facebook group “Me Alibagkar,” thereby extending the reach of Patel’s message and allegedly inciting communal disharmony.

SabrangIndia has a copy of the complaint. In light of these actions, the complainants have sought the registration of a case under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Sections 196 (offence promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion), 353 (statements that could incite mutiny, disregard of duty, or public fear, potentially leading to violence), and Section 3(5) (common intention or constructive liability in criminal cases). The complaint emphasises that both Patel and Ghanekar have played active roles in creating an atmosphere of distrust and hostility, thus endangering the social fabric of the region.

This complaint reflects growing concerns over hate speech and its dissemination via both physical and digital platforms, particularly in the aftermath of traumatic national events. The deliberate targeting of a minority religious community despite its public condemnation of violence raises serious questions about the motivations behind such inflammatory rhetoric. It also highlights the role of social media in rapidly spreading hate, thereby posing new challenges for law enforcement agencies tasked with maintaining communal harmony.

Details of the speech made by Chetan Patel

Chetan Patel, the Raigad district president of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), delivered a deeply troubling speech during a gathering in Raigad, Alibaug. In his address, Patel called for the social and economic boycott of Muslims, labelled secular-minded individuals as “worms” who must be crushed, and encouraged the use of violence and public humiliation against those advocating communal harmony. Referring to the situation as a “dharma yudh” (religious war), he invoked dangerous communal imagery, urging Hindus to tighten economic controls and sever ties with minorities. His statements not only vilified an entire community but also encouraged vigilantism and collective punishment, striking at the very foundations of India’s constitutional commitment to secularism and equality.

Transcript of the violent derogatory speech:

“In Alibaug, the town of ‘dead’ Hindus, to see so many of you gathered, I feel happy. Every time, instead of acting, we sit at home and curse some Salim, Maqdoom, or whoever, blaming them. Don’t blame them. Spot and single out the ‘secular worms’ among us, in our society, in your society — get them, crush them.”

“These are the people who have taken on the mantle (the vakalatnama) and constantly say, “All Muslims are not like this,” and so on. Catch hold of them and ask them: who gave you this vakalatnama? If we want this to end, we must first crush these ‘secular worms’ among us. Single them out. Socially boycott them. If they are making these arguments anywhere, slap them, fling cow dung on them. This has to stop. Until this stops, such incidents will continue happening.”

“Most critically, cut off their economic lifeline. This started during the Nagpur riots. Things in Nagpur are hawa tight (they have been taught a lesson). It has started in Nashik too. I know that in Alibaug squeezing them economically is tougher, but we must try and crush them economically.”

“Every rupee you spend on their business will be used against you. No one was asked over there whether you are Agri, Mali, or of any particular caste. They were simply asked to read the kalma, their pants were stripped, and then they were shot dead. They attacked only Hindus. Make them feel ashamed.”

“From tomorrow itself, when you are purchasing anything, at least practice an economic boycott. (Claps from five or six people.) Ask the names of those you are buying from. Until this starts, every month we will be meeting here for a shradhanjali (condolence meeting).”

“If we want to escape this cycle, economic boycott is the way. Every path has its method — not every person needs to brandish a sword. This should not be announced publicly, but it must sometimes be said. All of you assembled here — spread this message to your neighbours.”

“Purchasers too: look at whom you are buying from. If he is giving it for two rupees less, why can’t you? Start this. Tighten their economic strings. Squeeze them. Start now.”

“Cursing PM Modi or any Prime Minister or Home Minister every morning is not enough. This is a dharma yudh (religious war). Understand the 350-year-old history. Stand united, or else we will be chopped like potatoes and onions!”

“Forget brotherhood and harmony. A person who is not a brother to his own cousin sister, how can he be a brother to you?”

“Be ready for war. Economic boycott is the only way.” (Claps; around 15 onlookers present.)

Following the circulation of the video on social media, several concerned citizens raised complaints against Patel, highlighting the incendiary and divisive nature of his remarks. In response to mounting backlash, Patel issued a video apology, attempting to limit the scope of his comments by claiming they were directed solely at those supporting terrorism and foreign forces. He further stated that his intention was to preserve communal harmony in Alibaug. However, his original speech remains deeply problematic: it normalised hate speech, promoted unlawful actions like economic boycotts and violence, and severely undermined efforts to foster peace and unity. Even the subsequent apology fails to meaningfully address the dangerous consequences of the original call to action, which risked legitimising discrimination and communal violence in an already volatile environment.

Transcript of the apology:

“Namaskar. Jai Shri Ram. A video of mine has gone viral on social media. In order to prevent any misuse or misunderstanding, I wish to clarify that my words and opinions were not directed against any patriotic Indian citizen. They were aimed solely at those who, directly or indirectly, support the heinous act that took place in Pahalgam on April 22. My words were against those forces — from Pakistan, Bangladesh, or individuals associated with them — who should not be economically empowered. In my peaceful Alibaug, nothing should happen to disturb political, communal, or inter-religious harmony. It is with this intent that I am issuing this second video statement. If any Indian citizen’s religious sentiments have been hurt by my previous statement, I sincerely apologise. Jai Hind.”

Detailed piece about other such attempts including Alibaug may be read here.

Related:            

Echoes of Hate: Online anti-Muslim hate spreads against Muslim businesses and workers after Pahalgam attack

Pahalgam attack sparks nationwide turmoil, Kashmiri students face a chilling wave of hate across India

SC leads the nation’s legal fraternity as it unites in grief & outrage over Pahalgam terror attack

The post Complaint filed against VHP’s Chetan Jagdish Patel for inflammatory speech in Alibaug appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Glad to report: The Mumbai Police has now registered an FIR against the organisers of this Ram Navami rally. https://t.co/i0HxGHuh2I

— Kunal Purohit (@kunalpurohit) April 12, 2025

Purohit, who was present at the procession near the Airport Road metro station, posted the videos on April 7, capturing disturbing scenes of participants engaging in inflammatory speech. The footage showed chants such as “Aurangzeb Ki Kabr Khudegi, Maa Ch*degi, Maa Ch*degi,” along with other offensive lyrics that openly incited violence against Muslims

Spent a few hours in #RamNavami processions outside Mumbai’s International Airport:

*Slogans like ‘Aurangzeb Ki Kabr Khudegi, Maa Ch*degi, Maa Ch*degi’.
*Songs with words: Bharat Mein Jo Desh Drohi Hai, Unki Ma Ka Bh*sda.
*Songs that threaten brutal violence against Muslims. pic.twitter.com/3AnpzlTdtQ

— Kunal Purohit (@kunalpurohit) April 7, 2025

The procession, attended by thousands, featured a crowd mostly consisting of young men in their 20s and 30s, but also included some women and older individuals. Purohit described how the songs were widely known, with the crowd singing along to the chants, and the energy escalating whenever a song specifically targeted Muslims. The event was filled with repeated slogans calling for violence, including calls for the expulsion of Muslims from the country. Despite the presence of numerous police officers, Purohit observed no action taken to intervene or curb the hateful rhetoric being broadcasted publicly.

While the police were present in large numbers throughout the procession, it took the authorities several days to take action. The FIR against the organisers, filed on April 12, includes charges under sections 296 and 3(5) of the BNS Act, which address the use of offensive and inflammatory language during public events. Speaking to IndiaToday, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone 8, Maneesh Kalwaniya, confirmed that the case has been registered, but authorities have not yet disclosed whether they have identified or arrested the individuals responsible for leading the slogans.

This delay in filing the FIR raises important questions about the role of law enforcement in addressing hate speech, as well as the challenges faced by the authorities in responding to such incidents swiftly. The incident also highlights the growing concern over the lack of accountability for those who incite communal hatred in public spaces, even as law enforcement has been slow to act.

While Purohit’s videos led to action against organisers, Purohit had previously shared a screenshot from X (formerly Twitter), revealing that the Mumbai police had requested the platform to take down the videos, which depicted the hate speech and violence.

Dear @MumbaiPolice: fight hate, not journalism.

Received this notice from @X about taking down my videos of Mumbai’s hate-filled #RamNavami rally.

Documenting hate is journalism. I won’t be taking down these videos.

I have asked @Support to provide me a copy of the notice. pic.twitter.com/Ef0tgpmvQV

— Kunal Purohit (@kunalpurohit) April 11, 2025

Kunal Purohit refuses to remove videos, calls out police action

In a separate development, Purohit has been at the centre of controversy over Mumbai police’s attempts to remove his posts documenting the hate speech during the Ram Navami procession. On receiving a takedown notice from X, the social media platform, Purohit took to X (formerly Twitter) to share his defiance, calling out the police’s attempt to suppress journalism. He posted:

“Dear @MumbaiPolice: fight hate, not journalism. Received this notice from @X about taking down my videos of Mumbai’s hate-filled #RamNavami rally. Documenting hate is journalism. I won’t be taking down these videos. I have asked @Support to provide me a copy of the notice.”

Purohit’s response underscores his belief that his role as a journalist is to document events like these, especially when they involve hate speech that can incite violence. He argued that removing these videos would only serve to suppress the truth and prevent the public from understanding the full extent of the rhetoric that unfolded during the procession. His decision to stand firm on this issue highlights the growing tension between the criminalisation of journalism and the need to combat hate speech in public discourse.

This episode raises important questions about the role of law enforcement and social media platforms in the fight against hate speech. While the police are tasked with taking action against hate speech, the suppression of journalism in the process could send a chilling message to those documenting and exposing hate. Purohit’s stance also draws attention to the increasingly polarised nature of media reporting in India and the potential risks faced by journalists who report on sensitive or controversial topics.

Broader Implications: Law enforcement, journalism, and free speech

The case involving the Ram Navami rally organisers and the removal of Purohit’s videos highlights the ongoing struggles between ensuring public safety and protecting journalistic freedoms. It also raises questions about the broader impact of these actions on the media landscape in India. As journalists increasingly face pressure to remove content that challenges prevailing narratives or exposes hate speech, the role of media in documenting and holding those in power accountable becomes ever more important.

At the same time, the police’s delayed action in addressing the hate speech at the Ram Navami rally — despite the presence of law enforcement officers during the event — points to a larger issue regarding the failure to curb hate speech in a timely manner. This incident serves as a reminder of the urgent need for law enforcement to take a proactive approach to tackling hate speech and promoting accountability in cases where harmful rhetoric incites violence or division.

Related:

From Protectors to Perpetrators? Police assaulted women, Children, Christian priests in Odisha: Fact-finding report

Telangana BJP MLA Raja Singh booked for threat remarks against police during Ram Navami rally: ‘I’ll hit you with the same baton’, he has several, previous FIRS on hate speech

Bombay HC directs two police commissioners to personally examine videos of speeches delivered by BJP MLA Nitesh Rana, Geeta Jain and T. Raja Singh

Another case filed against T Raja Singh as he calls for fighting war against religious conversion

The post Mumbai Police file FIR against Ram Navami rally organisers over hate speech, target journalist Kunal Purohit’s videos separately appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Singh, already facing several criminal complaints for his alleged inflammatory speeches, has been booked for obstructing a public servant from performing his duties, criminal intimidation and intentional insult with the intent to provoke a breach of peace in one First Information Report (FIR), and disobeying a lawful order issued by a public servant and public nuisance in another. The cases were registered on April 8 and 6 respectively, at Mangalhat police station.

According to the Hyderabad police, the BJP MLA said during a speech near Balram Galli said in Telugu, “Na mundu unna police laki oka nivedika, bandi aapu bandi aapu koddiga, okka karyakarthalaki lathi kodithe manchiga undadu yadi pettuko, ade lati tho nenu kuda kodatha, na guddala dammu vundi yadi pettuko ardam ainda, Naku BP Penchoddu” which is roughly translated as “Here’s a statement to the police in front of me: Stop the vehicle, stop the vehicle a little bit, it won’t be good if you hit the activists with a baton, remember that. I will also hit you with the same baton, remember that I have the guts. Don’t raise my BP.”

In yet another case, the BJP MLA is said to have violated or disobeyed the orders of Vikram Singh Mann, the Additional Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, and for using more number of heavy vehicles and high-volume sound emitting systems (D.J) for the procession, causing inconvenience to the public and disrupting free flow of traffic.

On April 6, a Sunday, the Ram Navami Shobha Yatra procession started at Akashpuri Hanuman Temple and proceeded to Hanuman Vyayamshala, RamKoti, Hyderabad via Anita Tower-Puranapool Gandhi Statue, Jummerath Bazaar, Chudi Bazaar, Begum Bazar Chatri, Swastik Mirchi, Begum Bazaar Siddiamber Bazar Masjid, and Gowliguda Gurudwara Koti Women’s College, Sultan Bazaar.

The Hyderabad police had granted conditional permission to the legislator to hold the procession with prohibition on DJ sound systems, drone shooting and bursting of firecrackers.

Background

T Raja Singh, BJP’s MLA from Goshamahal in Hyderabad, is notorious for his controversial and often polarising views. His speech at the Deccan Summit in Pune on February 8, 2025, only further reinforced his reputation. Singh stirred the pot by promoting the divisive conspiracy theory of “Ghazwa-e-Hind,” falsely claiming that Muslims were plotting to turn India into an Islamic nation.

Divisive narratives

“They have another Pakistan inside India, these land jihadis.”

Singh had in that speech, as the complaint by Citizens for Justice and Peace, to the Maharashtra police states, gone on to misrepresent historical events and figures, wrongly alleging that former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had declared that Muslims had the first right to India’s resources. The narrative and rhetoric also targeted religious educational institutions, especially Madrasas, and he called for the construction of temples in historically disputed locations like Kashi, Mathura, Bhojshala, and Sambhal, where Mosques stand at the moment. In his mind, these temples, built after destroying the current Islamic religious structures, would “remove the stains” from these sacred sites, promoting the idea of religious purity while targeting Islamic places of worship.

Last July, 2024, the Citizens for Justice and Peace sent three separate complaints to relevant authorities of Maharashtra against three separate incidents of hate speeches delivered by BJP MLA Raja Singh in the month of May of that year. The speeches had been made on May 3, 14   and 26. In all the three incidents highlighted in the complaint, BJP MLA Raja Singh can be heard delivered provocative and inflammatory statements against the Muslim community at events organised by the Sakal Hindu Samaj.

Through these complaints, CJP has urged the authorities to take action against Singh, who is a Hyderabad resident and MLA from Goshamahal Assembly constituency. It is essential to note that Singh has been booked multiple times for making inflammatory remarks against Muslims. He has more than 40 criminal cases registered against him, and in 36 of these cases, the offence under IPC Section 153(A) has been invoked.

In addition to the transcriptions of the offending sections, the complaints had provided details of the multiple incidents of hate speeches by Raja Singh that had come forth in the year 2024 itself, many of which were in the state of Maharashtra. As per the details provided, in the month of January in 2024, Singh had been booked by the Mumbai police for delivering the anti-Muslim inflammatory speech in Solapur rally. In March of 2024, Karnataka police had booked Raja Singh for delivering a speech containing inflammatory remarks against Muslims at an event which was reportedly organised by Janatha Seva Group.

Highlighting the recent judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts that detailed the steps that the authorities are required to take while dealing with the issue of hate speeches being delivered at events, the complaint also provided the laws that have been violated by the said speeches under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Related:

Bombay HC directs two police commissioners to personally examine videos of speeches delivered by BJP MLA Nitesh Rana, Geeta Jain and T. Raja Singh

Another case filed against T Raja Singh as he calls for fighting war against religious conversion

BJP MLA Raja Singh uses anti-Muslim slurs, targets Muslims, encourages violence at rally permitted by Bombay High Court

The post Telangana BJP MLA Raja Singh booked for threat remarks against police during Ram Navami rally: ‘I’ll hit you with the same baton’, he has several, previous FIRS on hate speech appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In its submissions, CJP contended that as an organisation promoting communal harmony, it felt compelled to inquire whether appropriate action was being taken in accordance with directives issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court.

CJP urged authorities to adhere to these directions, which specifically ordered detailed investigations and prosecutions concerning hate speech, to ensure such divisive rhetoric did not go unchecked. CJP also highlighted the Supreme Court’s Amish Devgan judgment, which emphasised that those in positions of influence bore a greater responsibility for their words and actions and must be aware of the potential meanings and impacts of their words.

February 20, 2025 – Nanijdham, Ratnagiri Speech

The series of complaints included one filed on March 28, 2025 with the Superintendent of Police and the Collector & District Magistrate of Ratnagiri against Nitesh Rane for his divisive and communal rhetoric at a public felicitation event organised by Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Shri Swami Narendracharayaji Maharaj in Nanijdham, Ratnagiri on February 20, 2025. During this speech, Rane had delivered a deeply problematic anti-Muslim hate speech. He had propagated baseless conspiracies such as ‘love jihad’ and ‘land jihad,’ terms that CJP noted had been repeatedly used to spread harm and mistrust towards the Muslim community. Further escalating his rhetoric, Rane had used Islamophobic slurs like “jihadis” and targeted religious sites, specifically Mazars and Dargahs, claiming that they “just pop up anywhere.”

CJP asserted in its complaint that, “This inflammatory language, delivered in a public setting in Nanijdham, posed a serious threat to communal harmony and deserved immediate attention. Rane’s remarks spread dangerous narratives.” The complaint stated that a disturbing video of Nitesh Rane’s speech had surfaced, which could be perceived as encouraging hatred and attempting to justify it under the guise of religion. At the event, Rane had made claims regarding the alleged crime of “love jihad.”

However, CJP pointed out that there were no verified statistics or credible evidence supporting the existence of such a phenomenon. He had further escalated his rhetoric with conspiracies of “love jihad” and “land jihad,” calling Muslims “jihadis,” and attacking religious sites such as Mazars and Dargahs. CJP also noted that Rane had referred to the efforts of certain individuals to “Islamise” India, reinforcing harmful and unfounded myths about Muslims, and stressed that it was crucial that the police and authorities took stringent action to prevent further harm to the peace and harmony of the nation.

CJP detailed how elements in the speech delivered constituted hate speech, aligning with the elements outlined in the Supreme Court’s Amish Devgan judgment. Rane’s speech, CJP argued, employed demonising language and promoted unfounded conspiracy theories, particularly with terms like “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” and references akin to “Ghar Wapsi.” By framing these terms as part of a widespread and deliberate effort by Muslims to “Islamise” India, Rane, according to CJP, perpetuated the myth of a planned Islamic takeover, further stirring fear and mistrust among communities.

CJP further contended that Rane’s speech also crossed the line into direct threats and incitement to hatred. His call for a “Jihad-free coastline” and an anti-conversion law were seen by CJP as not only divisive but also potentially having the effect of restricting individuals’ freedom to make personal choices. The statement that the Maharashtra government would “take a firm stand without any Hindutva-based bias” in fighting against “illegal activities,” which included the building of mazars and tombs, was highlighted by CJP as clearly targeting Muslims and fostering an atmosphere where violence and discrimination against the Muslim community could be justified under the guise of national protection.

The copy of complaint dated March 28, 2025 can be accessed here:

February 5, 2025 – Wagholi, Pune Speech

Prior to the Nanijdham incident, on February 5, 2025, Rane had delivered another contentious speech at Rameshwar Mahadev Mandir in Wagholi, Pune. Consequently, on March 18, CJP further approached the ADG (Law &Order), Maharashtra, and Pune Police against this divisive hate speech. At this event, Rane had spread anti-Muslim hate speech, perpetuating the conspiracies of “land jihad” and “love jihad,” and falsely claiming that Muslims aimed to turn India into an Islamic state. In his inflammatory speech, Rane had urged Hindus to rent houses exclusively to fellow Hindus, warning that “it starts with one Aslam, and then you have a hundred Aslams.”

CJP argued this rhetoric served to demonise Muslims, portraying them as a threat to Hindu society. He had specifically targeted the practice of azaan, the Muslim call to prayer, claiming that if Hindus rented homes to Muslims, “in no time, they will be there in hordes, and next thing you know, the azaan is blaring five times a day.” CJP highlighted this statement as not only spreading fear but also perpetuating the false narrative that Muslims were attempting to impose their religious practices on non-Muslims.

CJP asserted that Rane had openly encouraged housing discrimination, an anti-Constitutional move that violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, by telling the audience: “Just declare that you don’t rent to non-Hindus.”

This, CJP contended, incited segregation and exclusion based on religion. Later, he had continued pushing the unfounded conspiracy of “love jihad,” reinforcing baseless claims that Muslims were deliberately targeting Hindu women for conversion and marriage. CJP noted these dangerous, divisive narratives fueled communal hatred and further polarised society.

In his speech, Rane had said, “When the police conducted their inquiry and asked what exactly they were plotting here, they responded by saying that their goal is to make India an Islamic nation by 2047, and all their efforts are directed towards achieving that.”

CJP argued that this statement fabricated an entire conspiracy theory that portrayed Muslims as systematically working to take over the nation. CJP described the allegation of a coordinated Islamic effort to turn India into an Islamic state by 2047 as completely unfounded, with no evidence to support such a claim, and designed to exploit fear and misrepresentation, creating an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion toward an entire religious group.

Further, against Rane’s statement with an exaggerated and dehumanising portrayal of Muslims, stating, “Because in the beginning, only one comes. Just one—someone named Aslam. And then he will bring 100 more Aslams along with him. I can give you at least 100 examples where one arrived, and soon there were 100 more. He will start cooking food that we don’t prefer, and because of that smell, the Hindu community will begin to leave,” CJP informed the Pune Police that this statement painted Muslims as a threat to the cultural and social fabric of Hindu communities.

CJP explained that the speaker used fear-based language, associating the arrival of Muslims with the destruction of Hindu lifestyle by focusing on trivial issues like food and religious practices, thereby dehumanising Muslims and intensifying community polarisation.

The copy of complaint dated March 18, 2025 can be accessed here:

February 8, 2025 – Kundal, Sindhudurg and February 19, 2025 – Sawantwadi, Sindhudurg Speeches

Earlier in February, Rane had delivered similar speeches in the Sindhudurg district. On March 7, CJP filed a joint complaint with the Superintendent of Police and the Collector & District Magistrate, Sindhudurg, against Nitesh Rane’s divisive hate speeches in Kundal on February 8, 2025, and Sawantwadi on February 19, 2025.

In its complaint, CJP mentioned that these speeches had been delivered at events organised by right-wing outfits. On February 8, 2025, Rane had spoken at the “Hindu Rashtra Adhiveshan” organised by Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) in Kundal, and on February 19, 2025, at the “Shivjanmostav” event organised by VHP-Bajrang Dal in Sawantwadi. CJP stated these speeches, delivered in different locations across Sindhudurg district, contained several alarming and dangerous elements of hate speech that merited urgent attention.

In his speech delivered at and reported from Kundal, Rane had spoken about what he termed “Love Jihad” and “Land Jihad,” terms which CJP noted had been coined and repeatedly used to generate a sentiment of harm towards the Muslim community. Rane had said, “how far have these Islamisation and Jihadisation people reached? How much has their courage grown? You all should imagine this. You people should be able to guess where the danger is from.” His speech, CJP argued, was also symptomatic of a dangerous rhetoric that provoked local communities into hostilities against some of their neighbours (Muslims).

In a similar vein, during his speech at Sawantwadi, Rane had continued with stigmatising slurs and stereotypes, stating: “If anyone in this Sawantwadi, this Sindhudurga, keep evil eye at my Hindu religion, just give me a call, I will make sure that he doesn’t go to that place again on Friday.” He had also asserted, “By 2047, there are plans to make our country, India, an Islamic nation. We must not fall victim to this.”

CJP described these misconceived and provocative statements, unsubstantiated by fact and delivered by a sitting MLA and Cabinet Minister, as deeply concerning. CJP contended that Rane’s warning in the Sawantwadi speech was not only a call to arms but also a clear incitement to communal hatred, with the phrase “I will make sure that he doesn’t go to that place again on Friday” being an explicit threat targeting Muslims, who traditionally observe prayers on Fridays.

This, CJP argued, aligned with hate speech, as it singled out a religious group and implicitly threatened them with harm.

The copy of complaint dated March 7, 2025 can be accessed here:

Rane’s speech served no aim other than to sow division and fuel communal hatred: CJP

CJP strongly contended that Rane’s speeches in Kundal and Sawantwadi exhibited numerous traits that were clearly indicative of hate speech. These speeches, CJP stated, targeted one section of the Indian population, the Muslims pointedly, propagating certain communal narratives that stirred resentment and incited fear. As per the Supreme Court’s judgment in Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1, such speech fell under the category of hate speech, as it sought to promote hatred against a particular group without any legitimate purpose. Rane’s inflammatory statements, CJP argued, met these criteria, as they served no aim other than to sow division and fuel communal hatred.

CJP referenced the Amish Devgan (2021) judgment, where a bench comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and Sanjay Khanna emphasised that hate speech was not merely an expression but an act intended to foster hatred or violence against a specific community, requiring subjective intent to target a group or class of people. The Court had further reinforced the responsibility of persons of influence, such as Rane, given the reach and authority they possessed over the public.

Supreme Court’s Decision in Amish Devgan v Union of India (2021)

Across its complaints, CJP urged authorities that as per the Supreme Court’s judgment in Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1, Rane’s speech fell under the category of hate speech, as it sought to promote hatred against a particular group without any legitimate purpose.

CJP argued Rane’s inflammatory statements met these criteria. The complaints highlighted that in the Amish Devgan judgment, the Court had emphasised that hate speech was not merely an expression but an act intended to foster hatred or violence against a specific community and clarified that for speech to be categorised as hate speech, there must be subjective intent to target a group or class of people. The Court had further reinforced the responsibility of persons of influence, such as Rane, given the reach and authority they possessed over the public.

CJP stressed the Court’s ruling that individuals in positions of power must be especially cautious of the messages they conveyed, understanding their potential to incite hatred and social discord. The complaints noted the Court observed that the object of criminalising hate speech was to protect the dignity of an individual and to ensure political and social equality between different identities and groups. In this context, the Court had explained that ‘dignity’ “refers to a person’s basic entitlement as a member of a society in good standing, his status as a social equal and as bearer of human rights and constitutional entitlements.”

Rane holds considerable sway over public opinion

In light of the Supreme Court decision, CJP argued that Nitesh Rane, as a sitting MLA and Cabinet Minister, held considerable sway over public opinion, and his position of influence amplified the impact of his words. By making remarks that explicitly targeted Muslims and encouraged anti-Muslim sentiment, Rane, according to CJP, not only flouted the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination but also directly contravened the guidelines set by the Supreme Court. His speeches were described as emblematic of the kind of rhetoric the Court had cautioned against, as they incited communal hatred without any valid or legitimate message.

Failure to uphold duty of responsibility

In its complaints, CJP mentioned that Nitesh Rane’s speeches, such as the one in Wagholi, represented a direct violation of his duty as a public figure, as outlined in the Amish Devgan judgment (2021). The Supreme Court had emphasised that individuals with substantial influence must exercise heightened responsibility, as their words could stir public sentiments and foster division. Rane’s rhetoric, CJP argued, filled with such provocative and divisive language, showed a blatant disregard for this responsibility. As a leader, Rane should have been aware of the harmful impact his words would have on the public, especially given his influence as an elected representative.

Apex Court mandated video recording of such events

In its complaints addressing the proliferation of hate speech in Maharashtra, CJP consistently highlighted the Supreme Court’s recent and explicit directives aimed at its prevention and prosecution. CJP underscored key judicial interventions, such as the order dated February 3, 2023, concerning an event by Sakal Hindu Samaj in Mumbai. On that occasion, the apex court had mandated video recording of the event, had secured an undertaking from the Maharashtra government that permission would be conditional upon no hate speech being delivered, and had directed law enforcement to utilise Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for preventive action if warranted.

Furthermore, CJP pointed to the Supreme Court’s proceedings on January 17, 2024, where the bench had expressed its dismay at the necessity for repeated petitions and had directed the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police in Yavatmal, Maharashtra (along with Raipur, Chhattisgarh) to take ‘appropriate steps,’ including the installation of CCTV cameras, to ensure no incitement to hate speech occurred during planned rallies. These specific Supreme Court mandates, CJP emphasised, formed a central pillar of its arguments, emphasising the judiciary’s expectation of proactive and diligent law enforcement against individuals and groups disseminating hate.

Circulars issued by DGP Maharashtra in February 2023 and May 2023 urging strict action on hate speech

CJP’s complaints further elaborated that these Supreme Court pronouncements had spurred administrative responses within Maharashtra, notably citing circulars issued by the Director General of Police (DGP) in February and April 2023. The February 2, 2023 circular, referencing a Supreme Court order from January 13, 2023, had directed all Unit Commanders to ensure suo moto action (under IPC Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 505) when hate speech occurred, even without a formal complaint.

The subsequent circular on April 3, 2023, had detailed comprehensive measures for maintaining law and order during agitations and speeches, including mandatory meetings with organisers, audio-video recording of events, and pre-emptive intelligence gathering.

In all its submissions, CJP systematically referred to the foundational Supreme Court order in Shaheen Abdulla vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940/2022), which had mandated suo moto action against hate speech, and its crucial expansion in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (April 28, 2023), directing all States and Union Territories to register FIRs against hate speech offenders irrespective of their religion.

By invoking these judicial directives, administrative instructions, and pertinent legal precedents such as Firoz Iqbal Khan vs Union of India and Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, CJP contended that the persistent failure of authorities to curb inflammatory rhetoric, which often instilled fear within minority communities and was amplified by social media, represented a significant contravention of established legal and constitutional safeguards.

Related:

Understand what constitutes Hate Speech

CJP lodges additional police complaints against Nitesh Rane and Ashwini Upadhyay for hate speeches

Maharashtra: Six more complaints filed against hate offenders by CJP

The post CJP files three complaints against pro-right-wing leader and BJP Minister Nitesh Rane over alleged hate speech in Maharashtra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasia of the Rouse Avenue Courts orally remarked, “this means FIR,” indicating that the court’s directive for further investigation effectively necessitates the registration of a First Information Report against Mishra. The judge observed that a cognizable offence had been established concerning one of the incidents detailed in the complaint, warranting deeper scrutiny.

The court stated that the evidence presented by the prosecution clearly placed Mishra at the scene and that “all the things were corroborating.” It further noted that Mishra, during interrogation, admitted to being in the area and acknowledged that people had gathered around him, many of whom he knew. This admission, the court stated, “fortifies the allegations of the complainant.”

Significantly, the court pointed out that Mishra’s statement was not framed in terms of support for or opposition to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) but rather in explicitly communal terms. The court noted that Mishra “had not framed his statement under ‘Pro-CAA or Anti-CAA’ but rather ‘DUSRI TARAF MUSLIM’ with the distinction of us and them, wherein them is ‘DUSRI TARAF MUSLIM.’” The judge remarked that such rhetoric “clearly establishes sides and requires investigation to unearth the truth.”

As per a report in LiveLaw, the court further observed that Mishra’s presence in North-East Delhi a day before the riots, which he himself admitted, could not be ignored. Additionally, it directed that senior police officer DCP Ved Prakash Surya be examined, following allegations by the complainant that Surya had threatened protesters, saying, “If you did not stop this protest, then consequence will happen here that you will be killed.” The judge stressed that “his personal interrogation is necessary,” adding, “The series of events reveals that perhaps, if allegations of complainant are found to be true, then DCP Ved Prakash Surya knows something which this Judiciary does not.”

At the same time, the court stated that if the complainant’s allegations were proven false, the Delhi Police would be at liberty to take action under Section 182 of the IPC for filing false information. It also directed the DCP of North-East Delhi to ensure that the order for further investigation was sent to the appropriate police station within its jurisdiction. Failure to comply, the court warned, would hold the DCP legally accountable.

The Delhi Police has been ordered to file a compliance report by April 16, 2025, the next date of hearing. Petitioner Mohammad Ilyas was represented by Advocate Mehmood Pracha, while Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad appeared for the Delhi Police.

This directive represents a major step towards accountability in the 2020 Delhi riots case, even if it is beginning 5 years down the lane. Despite the political climate and prior reluctance to act against influential figures, the court’s insistence on further investigation highlights the need for an impartial and thorough probe into the events leading to the communal violence.

Details of the complaint against Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra

A Delhi court was hearing a complaint filed by Mohammad Ilyas, seeking an investigation into the alleged role of BJP leader and Delhi Minister Kapil Mishra in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The plea, however, was met with strong opposition from the Delhi Police, who argued that Mishra was being falsely implicated as part of a “well-planned conspiracy.”

The complainant, Mohammad Ilyas, sought the registration of an FIR against Mishra, along with then SHO of Dayalpur police station and five other individuals, including BJP MLA Mohan Singh Bisht and former BJP MLAs Jagdish Pradhan and Satpal Sansad.

According to Ilyas, on February 23, 2020, he personally witnessed Mishra and his associates blocking a road and destroying the handcarts of street vendors. He also alleged that the then Deputy Commissioner of Police (North-East) and other officers were present alongside Mishra as he issued warnings to anti-CAA protesters, demanding they vacate the area or face dire consequences.

Ilyas had moved the court in December 2024, urging an inquiry into the roles of Mishra and six others in the riots, which resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries. In March 2025, the Delhi Police reiterated their stance, arguing that Mishra’s role had already been investigated and “nothing incarcerating” had been found.

In his petition, Ilyas specifically named Mishra, Mustafabad MLA and Deputy Speaker Mohan Singh Bisht, the then DCP (North-East), the then SHO of Dayalpur police station, and former BJP legislator Jagdish Pradhan, holding them responsible for inciting the riots. As reported by The Hindu, Ilyas stated that he saw Mishra and his associates obstructing a road in Kardampuri and damaging street vendors’ stalls. Additionally, he alleged that the former North-East DCP and several police officers stood by as Mishra issued threats to anti-CAA demonstrators.

Ilyas also accused the former Dayalpur SHO and others of vandalising mosques across North-East Delhi, further intensifying concerns over the role of law enforcement in the communal violence.

Delhi Police opposes plea seeking FIR

On March 6, 2025, the Delhi Police filed a written submission before a Delhi court, opposing a plea that sought the registration of an FIR against BJP leader and Delhi Minister Kapil Mishra for his alleged involvement in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

The police contended that the complaint, filed by Mohammad Ilyas, was part of a “well-planned conspiracy” to falsely implicate Mishra in the riots. They asserted that the BJP leader had no role in the violence and was being deliberately framed.

As part of their argument, the prosecution referred to conversations from various WhatsApp groups, including the Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG), alleging that certain individuals had orchestrated a social media campaign against Mishra. The police claimed that the hashtag #ArrestKapilMishra was being used strategically to construct a misleading narrative around his involvement in the riots.

Additionally, the Delhi Police maintained that Mishra’s alleged role had already been investigated and that no incriminating evidence was found against him. In an earlier submission from October 2024, the police argued that the riots were the outcome of a “pre-planned conspiracy” designed to incite violence in Muslim-majority areas, particularly around mosques and religious sites. The goal, they claimed, was to escalate “protests” into “Chakkajaam” (road blockades) once a critical mass of demonstrators had gathered.

The police further stated that misleading WhatsApp messages were circulated at the time, falsely alleging that a mob led by Mishra had initiated the violence. They insisted that these claims were part of an attempt to create a false narrative and implicate him in the riots.

Opposition demands resignation of Kapil Mishra following court’s order

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Congress on April 1, 2025, demanded the resignation of Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra after a city court directed the registration of an FIR to investigate his alleged role in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

Addressing a press conference, Delhi AAP president Saurabh Bharadwaj stated that sufficient evidence of Mishra’s involvement was already in the public domain and called for his immediate arrest. “Mishra should resign and be arrested, as the court has ordered an FIR to probe his role in the riots. For the sake of morality, he should step down, just as others accused in the case have been arrested,” Bharadwaj asserted.

As per the report of Times of India, Bharadwaj further criticised the delay in legal proceedings, pointing out that it took over five years for the judicial system to act on the case. Bharadwaj also alleged that a judge who had previously directed the police to take action in the case was transferred to another state.

AAP’s chief spokesperson Priyanka Kakkar echoed the demand, questioning why Mishra was being treated differently from others accused in the riots. “Every other accused in the Delhi riots case has been arrested. Why is Kapil Mishra an exception?” she asked.

Delhi Congress president Devender Yadav also called for Mishra’s resignation, citing the court’s findings. “The Rouse Avenue court has established that there is a cognisable offence against him. This is a serious matter, and if there is any sense of morality left, he should resign immediately to allow for a fair and independent investigation,” Yadav said.

Delhi riots case and Mishra’s incendiary speech

The 2020 North-East Delhi riots: The 2020 Delhi riots, which took place between 24 and 26 February, led to significant violence in North-East Delhi, resulting in 53 deaths, over 500 injuries, and extensive property damage. Ironically, while a majority of those killed and harmed were Muslims, most of those who have been arrested for their role during the riots are also Muslims. Several student leaders and activists, including Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, and Sharjeel Imam, were accused by the police of conspiring to incite the riots. These remain in jail, with the trial yet to begin. However, a fact-finding team formed by the Delhi Minorities Commission concluded that the violence was “planned and targeted” and held BJP leader Kapil Mishra responsible for triggering it.

Mishra’s alleged role in inciting violence: Delhi Cabinet Minister and BJP leader Kapil Mishra is accused of provoking violence through a speech delivered at Maujpur Chowk on February 23, 2020. In his speech, he issued an ultimatum, demanding that the police clear anti-CAA protest sites within three days or risk intervention by his supporters.

The fact-finding report had noted that “violence started in different pockets almost immediately after the short speech of Shri Kapil Mishra on 23 February, 2020, at Maujpur, in which he openly called for forcefully removing the protestors at Jafrabad in North-East Delhi.” It further highlighted Mishra’s explicit warning: “After that, we will not listen to the police if roads are not cleared after three days…”

The committee criticised the Delhi Police for failing to act against Mishra, despite senior officer DCP Ved Prakash Surya standing beside him during the speech. The report stated that “the open admission of ‘not listening’ to the police and extra-legal tactics should have been seen by the authorities as inciting violence.” The committee concluded that by not apprehending Mishra, the police “failed to take the first and most immediate preventive step needed to avoid violence and protect life and property.”

Legal challenges against Mishra and other political leaders: Multiple legal petitions have been filed seeking an FIR against Kapil Mishra for inciting violence. Human rights defender Harsh Mander had petitioned for an FIR against Mishra under Section 153 of the IPC (provocation for riot) and Section 125 of the Representation of People’s Act (causing ill will between communities for electoral purposes). These sections do not require prior government sanction.

Similarly, CPI (M) leader Brinda Karat has been pursuing legal action against politicians whose speeches allegedly incited violence against anti-CAA-NRC-NPR protestors. She approached the Delhi High Court after her plea to register an FIR against Union Minister Anurag Thakur and BJP MP Pravesh Verma for their alleged hate speeches was dismissed by a trial court on technical grounds. The trial court had ruled that a prior sanction from the central government was required before proceeding. Karat challenged this ruling, arguing that such procedural objections should be addressed early to prevent unnecessary delays in cases involving hate speech. (Details may be read here.)

Related:

Kapil Mishra delivers anti-Muslim statements, targets activist Harsh Mander in his speech

Kajal Hindusthani, Kapil Mishra, amongst others, target Muslim religious minorities, calls for their “erasure” and “Ghar Wapasi” unchallenged

Did Kapil Mishra’s Ram Navami speech incite communal violence, demolition drive in Khargone?

I have no regrets, if need be, I’d do it again: Kapil Mishra

CJP moves MEITY against Kapil Mishra’s communal social media posts

The post “This Means FIR”: Delhi Court orders further investigation, FIR against BJP leader Kapil Mishra five years after Delhi riots appeared first on SabrangIndia.