The Historical Frame: Contesting sacred space

Sambhal is a Muslim-majority town (approx. 77.6%) in western Uttar Pradesh with historical and architectural significance. Sambhal is home to the Shahi Jama Masjid, one of only two surviving mosques built during Babur’s reign, with the other being in Panipat. The mosque stands as a rare surviving monument from the early Mughal era.  The town also holds significance in Hindu belief as the prophesied birthplace of Lord Kalki, the tenth avatar of Vishnu. While the mosque is a protected monument under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), right-wing groups claim it was built on the ruins of the “Hari Har Mandir”, allegedly demolished during the Mughal era. These claims rely on discredited 19th-century colonial accounts, particularly by ACL Carlleyle, whose report was rejected by the then ASI Director General, Sir Alexander Cunningham.

This confluence of history and myth set the stage for conflict, especially in a town that was once a stronghold of anti-CAA protests and continues to elect Muslim representatives like MP Zia Ur Rahman Barq, whose family has long resisted the majoritarian politics of the ruling party. Over the past few years, this mythical narrative has been aggressively revived. Mahant Rishiraj Giri, a petitioner in the present dispute, has said he wanted to file a case even before the Babri suit. The town has already been declared a potential “Kalki Dham” by BJP leaders, and PM Modi laid the foundation of a Kalki temple in 2024.

November 2024: A timeline of escalation

• November 19: A civil suit by eight petitioners is filed alleging the mosque was once a temple. Within hours, by 3:30 pm, the Sambhal civil court grants permission for a survey, waives the notice requirement, and appoints an advocate commissioner. By 7:00 pm, the survey was underway. The mosque committee was neither notified nor given a chance to be heard.
• November 22: Friday prayers occur under heavy police presence.
• November 23: Authorities begin preventive detention under Section 107/116 of the CrPC; 34 persons, including the father of MP Zia Ur Rahman Barq, are bound by peace bonds up to ₹10 lakh.
• November 24: A second survey is conducted without fresh court orders. Police are accompanied by PAC, RAF, and officials from multiple districts. This time, a video went viral showing members of the survey team chanting “Jai Shri Ram”, and a rumour spread that the mosque was being excavated. The ablution tank was drained, and water was seen seeping from the structure, fueling panic. A protest breaks out. Police respond with tear gas, lathis, and gunfire. Five Muslim men are killed.

Police Firing: Lethal force, denials, and eyewitnesses

According to Masjid Committee President Zafar Ali, the protest on November 24 was peaceful until CO Anuj Chaudhary responded to concerns with verbal abuse and an unprovoked lathi charge. he police, led by CO Anuj Chaudhary, responded with verbal abuse, a lathi charge, and then tear gas. As people began to flee, the police escalated, firing live ammunition.Tear gas followed, and then live rounds were fired. The crowd began to disperse, but police pursued them into lanes and homes. Eyewitnesses reported police using slurs, destroying property, and shooting indiscriminately.

Five Muslim men were killed, including a minor:

• Kamran (17), shot in the chest.
• Nasir, Abbas, Basim, and Nabeel—each with fatal injuries, many allegedly from police bullets.

Videos circulated showing police shouting “Goli chalao” (fire the gun), pelting stones, and dragging minors. Authorities denied using firearms but later admitted to firing “warning shots”. Zafar Ali, who openly accused the police, was detained and later arrested under serious charges.

Authorities claimed the protesters were armed and that police only fired in retaliation. Yet, no police injuries or gunshot wounds from “desi kattas” were documented. The families dispute the claim of crossfire and assert that their relatives were unarmed and shot from the front. (Detailed report may be read here.)

Suppression of victim families and testimonies

The families of the deceased report:

• Denial of postmortem reports.
• Being forced to sign blank papers or coerced to remove references to police in their complaints.
• Rapid burials under police pressure.
• Heavy surveillance at their homes, making it difficult to speak to outsiders or pursue legal recourse.

For example, Kamran’s family was called to identify his body, made to give thumbprints on documents, and forced to bury him amid a police convoy. Nasir’s mother said she saw two bullet wounds but received no documentation. Basim, before dying, told his family he was shot by police. The police allegedly forced them to rewrite their complaint, removing the word “police”.

The Legal Offences: Violating due process and the law

As per the report, the lower court’s order violated:

• Section 80(2) CPC: No genuine urgency justified bypassing notice to the mosque committee.
• Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991: This law bars alteration of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947.
• Article 26 of the Constitution: Grants religious denominations autonomy over their places of worship.

Despite these clear violations, the Allahabad High Court later upheld the survey, and referred to the mosque as an “alleged masjid” even in a whitewashing plea. The Supreme Court has stayed proceedings but failed to undo the communal spectacle that the survey facilitated. (Detailed report may be read here.)

Myth-Making: Temple discoveries and state rituals

Shortly after the violence, local officials claimed to “discover” a hidden temple near the Shahi Jama Masjid. The structure was cleaned and declared sacred. District officials performed worship ceremonies, and a priest claimed the idol “smiled”. This triggered a wave of temple “discoveries”, 24 sites were surveyed by the ASI within weeks. Carbon dating was announced, and claims emerged that 56 temples and 19 sacred wells had been hidden by Muslims.

The government launched a spiritual tourism project titled “Kalki Nagri.” Plans were made to develop 87 religious sites and a 24-Kosi Parikrama Marg. Authorities, priests, and right-wing figures declared temple idols had been “discovered” at sites like wells and drains. In some cases, idols were immediately installed and worshipped. The state began institutionalising the narrative that Sambhal is a Hindu holy site under siege.

Muslim residents refuted these claims, saying these were existing sites in disrepair. As per the report, a local lawyer remarked: “They are digging up new temples every day. We fear they will come into our homes and dig one up there too.”

A new police chowki named “Satyavrat Chowki” was built outside the Shahi Jama Masjid using stones from the protest site. The chowki was inaugurated with Hindu rituals, including a havan and shlokas etched on its walls

Administrative Reprisals: Raids, Demolitions, and Surveillance

In the weeks after the firing:

• Mass detentions occurred. 83 people, including minors and Masjid Committee President Zafar Ali, were jailed. Over 160 bail pleas have been rejected. (Detailed report may be read here.)
• Zafar Ali, who publicly stated he saw police firing, was arrested on March 23, just before he was scheduled to testify before a judicial commission. He had not been named in any FIR prior. His arrest included disproportionate BNS charges, including those carrying life imprisonment or death penalty. Dormant cases from 2018 and 2021 were suddenly revived against him.
• Police launched electricity theft drives: 1440 cases were registered, mostly against Muslims, including 16 mosques and two madrasas. A total fine of ₹11 crores was imposed. MP Barq alone was fined ₹1.91 crores (Detailed report may be read here.)
• Encroachment demolitions began in Muslim areas. Some residents pre-emptively dismantled their own homes.
• The Janeta Sharif Dargah, previously a site of interfaith worship, was marked for probe, its clinic shut down, and its fair cancelled.
• Loudspeakers were removed from mosques.
• Police built a new outpost, engraved with Hindu shlokas, using stones allegedly “thrown by Muslims” on November 24.
• The administration questioned the Dargah’s Waqf status, and its land was bulldozed. This marked the first major Waqf land crackdown since the 2024 Amendment Act. (Detailed report may be read here.)

Surveillance and silencing of victims

Families of victims report constant police surveillance. The report recorded one mother stating that “They sit outside our house 24×7. You are lucky you met us while they were away.”

Many families, like those of Nasir, Abbas, and Nadia, reported being beaten, having property vandalised, and facing threats if they spoke to media or filed complaints. The DVRs of CCTV footage were seized. Police broke into homes and slapped women, dragged children, and refused to register complaints.

Constructing a new narrative: From victims to villains

The state and media spun a narrative portraying Muslims as aggressors:

• UP CM Adityanath claimed Muslims had turned mosques into “mini power stations”.
• He invoked a fabricated figure of 168 Hindu deaths in the 1978 Sambhal riots to justify crackdowns.
• Posters branding Muslims as “pathharbaaz” (stone pelters) were plastered across the town.
• The Kalki Dev Tirth Samiti was instituted to develop “religious tourism”, with 87 sites being prepared for Hindu pilgrimage.

The result is a manufactured transformation of Sambhal from a Muslim-majority town to a contested Hindu religious centre, without public debate, evidence, or consent.

Legal recommendations and civil society appeals

The report calls for:

• Independent investigation into police killings and torture.
• Immediate release of detainees without proper FIRs.
• Enforcement of the Places of Worship Act in both letter and spirit.
• Rebuilding trust through compensation and an end to bulldozer demolitions.
• Holding judicial commissions accountable for bias.
• A nationwide civil society campaign to reject communal myth-making and support Sambhal’s residents.

Conclusion: Sambhal as a “Template”

The report ends on a haunting note:

“Ultimately, the situation in Sambhal is not an isolated incident but part of a larger pattern of narrative construction that seeks to redefine the Muslim community as a problem to be managed rather than a population deserving of rights and protection. As such, it calls for a reevaluation of how narratives are formed, disseminated, and challenged in the pursuit of justice and communal harmony, alongside a robust resistance to the forces that seek to communalize and polarize Indian society.”

Sambhal, the authors of the report warn, is not an aberration, rather it is a preview. If unchallenged, the Sambhal model will become the blueprint for future communal engineering. The report is a call to document, resist, and refuse—to protect the republic from turning against its own.

The complete report may be read here.

Related:

Sambhal Custodial Death: A systemic failure exposed

Supreme Court blocks execution of Nagar Palika’s order regarding well near Sambhal Mosque, prioritises peace and harmony

Uttar Pradesh’s new tactics for harassment: Electricity theft charges, strategic revival of temple, opening up of 1978 Sambhal communal riots cases

Sambhal Mosque, Ajmer Dargah: how deep do we plunge into the abyss?

Sambhal Violence: State crackdown intensifies, thousands accused, and allegations of police misconduct ignite a political and communal crisis in Uttar Pradesh

Sambhal’s darkest hour: 5 dead, scores injured in Mosque survey violence as UP police face allegations of excessive force

The post “Sambhal: Anatomy of an Engineered Crisis”- How a peaceful Muslim-majority town was turned into a site of manufactured communal conflict appeared first on SabrangIndia.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the mosque committee, raised a new issue: a notice issued by the Sambhal Nagar Palika (municipality) regarding a well situated near the mosque. The notice referred to the well as “Hari Mandir” (a term associated with Hindu temples), which Ahmadi argued could potentially lead to its use for religious practices such as prayers or bathing by others. This, according to Ahmadi, would disturb the traditional use of the well by the mosque, which had been a source of water for its purposes for generations. Ahmadi expressed concerns that such a development could cause communal tensions in the area.

The bench, while initially questioning whether allowing others to use the well would cause harm, listened carefully to Ahmadi’s concerns. The Chief Justice asked, “What harm is there in allowing others to use it?” as per LiveLaw. However, Ahmadi clarified that allowing its use for religious practices outside the mosque’s control would lead to significant disruptions and could escalate the situation. The bench, taking into account these arguments, issued an order stating that the notice issued by the Nagar Palika should not be given effect. This effectively blocked the municipality’s attempt to alter the status quo regarding the well for the time being. Additionally, the bench scheduled a hearing for February 21, 2025, and directed the parties to file a status report within two weeks.

Court’s continuous concerns over communal harmony and ongoing legal battles

This legal battle surrounding the Sambhal Jama Masjid is not an isolated case but part of a wider trend of disputes over religious sites across India. On January 10, 2025, while addressing the petition, Chief Justice Khanna expressed concerns about the potential for communal tensions in the region, which had already experienced violence in the past. The Court emphasised that peace and harmony must be maintained, and it stressed that it was “keeping a close watch” to ensure that no actions were taken that could disturb the fragile communal balance in the area.

The Supreme Court’s involvement in the case follows earlier hearings and orders. On November 29, 2024, the Court had directed the Sambhal trial court to refrain from proceeding with the suit filed against the mosque until the petition filed by the mosque committee before the Allahabad High Court had been heard. This was a crucial development in the case, as it halted further legal action in the trial court, including the controversial survey, which had the potential to exacerbate communal tensions.

At the same hearing, the bench also ordered that the report prepared by the Advocate Commissioner, who had conducted a survey of the mosque, be kept in a sealed cover. This order was a precautionary measure to prevent the premature release of the report and to safeguard against its misuse in inflaming the situation. Chief Justice Khanna, along with Justice Kumar, made it clear that their primary concern was to maintain neutrality and ensure that no actions were taken that would escalate tensions in the region. The Court highlighted the need for absolute neutrality in such sensitive matters to ensure that peace was maintained.

The involvement of the Uttar Pradesh government, represented by Senior Advocate Colonel (Retd) R. Balasubramanian, was also notable. Balasubramanian assured the Court that the situation in Sambhal was peaceful and that no further issues had arisen. However, Ahmadi, on behalf of the mosque committee, accused the state government of being biased in handling the matter, which further complicated the situation. The Court, while taking note of these concerns, reiterated that its primary focus was to ensure peace and prevent any further aggravation of the issue.

Broader implications of the case and the Supreme Court’s approach

The petition filed by the mosque committee raised several key legal and procedural concerns. One of the central arguments was that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which prohibits the alteration of the character of religious places, barred the suit and the subsequent survey. The committee argued that the trial court’s ex-parte order for the survey was legally invalid because it had been passed without hearing the mosque’s side, thereby violating procedural fairness. The committee contended that such actions could set a dangerous precedent, especially as similar lawsuits and surveys were being initiated at other religious sites across India.

The committee also raised concerns about the pattern emerging in such cases, where plaintiffs with belated claims were seeking surveys of mosques without providing substantial evidence. This, they argued, could inflame communal passions and create law and order problems, undermining the secular fabric of the country. The mosque committee called for the Court to issue directions to prevent the routine issuance of survey orders without proper hearings, as this would contribute to further communal discord and destabilise the region.

In response to these concerns, the Supreme Court adopted a cautious approach, leaving the Special Leave Petition filed by the mosque committee pending. The bench decided to send the matter to the Allahabad High Court for further proceedings, but it made it clear that the trial court should not take any further steps in the suit until the High Court had examined the petition. This decision underlined the Court’s commitment to maintaining peace and neutrality in such sensitive matters, while also ensuring that the legal process was followed in a fair and just manner.

As part of its broader efforts to address communal tensions in the region, the Supreme Court also suggested the formation of a peace committee under Section 43 of the Mediation Act. This committee would aim to facilitate dialogue and foster communal harmony, helping to mitigate tensions and avoid the escalation of conflicts related to religious sites.

The case of the Sambhal Jama Masjid is just one of many high-profile legal disputes involving religious sites in India. In December 2024, the Supreme Court had issued a broader directive preventing lower courts from passing interim or final orders, including survey orders, in cases related to religious structures like the Gyanvapi mosque, the Mathura Shahi Idgah, and the Sambhal Jama Masjid. This directive was part of the Court’s ongoing efforts to prevent the escalation of communal tensions and ensure that these sensitive issues were dealt with in a manner that preserved peace and harmony. (Details can be read here and here.)

The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Sambhal Jama Masjid case reflects its role in balancing legal principles with the need to maintain social order. The Court’s decisions in this case will likely have far-reaching implications for similar cases across the country, particularly those involving religious structures that are at the heart of communal disputes.

Related:

Jaunpur’s Atala mosque has moved HC against local court order directing filing of suit claiming it was ‘ancient Hindu temple’

Sambhal’s darkest hour: 5 dead, scores injured in Mosque survey violence as UP police face allegations of excessive force

Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque

The post Supreme Court blocks execution of Nagar Palika’s order regarding well near Sambhal Mosque, prioritises peace and harmony appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The raids, conducted primarily in Muslim-dominated areas, have been criticised by all as biased and vindictive. Local Muslims describe the operation as a “witch hunt,” accusing the authorities of targeting their community under the guise of law enforcement. So far, the UPPCL claims to have uncovered power theft in numerous households, levying fines amounting to ₹1.3 crore. Several homes have had their power connections severed, leaving families in distress. Danish, a businessman from the area spoke to Maktoob media and voiced the community’s frustration: “Earlier, they used to demolish houses of Muslims. Now they are accusing us of power theft. They don’t want us to live peacefully.” 

Allegations against SP MP Zia-Ur-Rahman Barq- first rioting, now electricity theft

The most high-profile case involves Samajwadi Party MP Zia-Ur-Rahman Barq, whose home in Sambhal’s Deepa Sarai locality was raided by UPPCL officials accompanied by police. According to the authorities, Barq’s three-storey house was operating with two electricity meters, each with a capacity of just two kilowatts (kW), despite a load requirement of at least 16.5 kW. The electricity department alleged that the meters were tampered with, showing zero or minimal readings over the past six months. These discrepancies led to the disconnection of power and a hefty fine of ₹1.9 crore imposed on the MP.

Santosh Tripathi, the Sub-Divisional Officer of the electricity department spoke to multiple media houses and said, “A house of this size, equipped with air conditioners, refrigerators, and other electrical appliances, cannot function on such a low load. During inspections, we found that the meters registered zero consumption for six months.” Tripathi also alleged that solar panels installed at Barq’s residence were non-functional, further questioning the family’s explanation of their electricity usage.

However, Barq’s lawyer, Qasim Jamal, has rejected these allegations, asserting that the residence operates on two 4-kW meters, supplemented by a 10-kW solar panel and a 5-kW generator. “We will present all this evidence in court,” Jamal stated. Despite this defence, the authorities maintain their stance, with Additional Superintendent of Police Shrish Chandra affirming that evidence of tampering and unauthorised load has been documented.

Another threat FIR Against MP Zia-ur-Rahman Barq- another layer of targeted action

Pursuant to the electricity raid, The Uttar Pradesh police have lodged an FIR against Samajwadi Party MP Zia-ur-Rahman Barq and his father, Mamlook-ur-Rahman, accusing them of threatening and intimidating officials from the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). According to the complainants, UPPCL engineers V.K. Gangal and Ajay Sharma, who were inspecting the residence, faced threats from Mamlook-ur-Rahman. They allege that Mamlook told them he was recording their actions and warned that they would face consequences when the government changes. The engineers also claimed that the household was drawing over 16 kilowatts (kW) of power despite only being authorised for a 2-kW connection.

Notably, MP Barq denied the allegations, calling them politically motivated. He stated that the Yogi Adityanath government was targeting him for raising concerns about police violence during a controversial court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid on November 24, which had resulted in the deaths of four Muslims. “I was not in Sambhal that day, yet the police booked me for instigating the mob. Now, they have filed another FIR against me. There is no power theft in my house; this is a false and motivated allegation,” Barq told reporters.

The FIR against Barq adds another dimension to the state’s actions against him. Already named in an FIR for allegedly instigating violence during the mosque survey, Barq has denied those charges as well, maintaining that he was not present in Sambhal at the time of the incident. He has challenged the accusations in the Allahabad High Court. However, the state has escalated its actions, first accusing him of power theft and now of threatening public servants.

The Shahi Jama Masjid survey itself has been a flashpoint in Sambhal, as it purportedly sought to determine whether the mosque was built by demolishing a temple during Mughal rule. The survey led to clashes between police and locals, with five Muslims killed and many others injured. Barq has been vocal in demanding justice for the victims, a stance he believes has made him a target for retribution.

Detailed reports on Sambhal may be read here and here.

This latest FIR reflects a pattern of suppressing dissent through legal and administrative means. For Barq, it underscores how opposition figures, particularly those raising issues affecting Muslim communities, are increasingly vulnerable to state-backed harassment. As he continues to contest these charges in court, the allegations against him and his family raise broader concerns about the use of legal mechanisms to silence critics and intimidate minorities.

Community concerns and broader implications

For the Muslim community in Sambhal, these allegations come amid heightened tensions following recent police violence. Many residents fear that the power theft crackdown is merely a continuation of the state’s efforts to marginalise them. The timing of these actions has further deepened suspicions. Shortly before the crackdown over electricity theft, a Hindu temple in Sambhal was reopened, with right-wing groups demanding surveys of surrounding areas and the removal of Muslim homes. Many have argued that the power theft raids and the accompanying media narrative serve to vilify Muslims and distract from the systemic targeting of their community.

The impact on residents has been severe. As per the report of the Indian Express, Idreesa, whose son was among those killed in November’s violence, has now been accused of power theft and fined ₹8,000. “They don’t want us to live peacefully,” said Zohaib, another resident, who noted that such actions are unprecedented in the region’s recent history.

The systematic nature of these raids, coupled with heavy police deployment, suggests an orchestrated effort to intimidate and harass the community. As demolitions face judicial oversight, electricity theft allegations are becoming a new weapon in the state’s arsenal, raising critical questions about the abuse of administrative power and the deepening marginalisation of minorities in Uttar Pradesh.

The strategic revival of the Shiv-Hanuman temple in Sambhal: A questionable timeline

The reopening of the Shiv-Hanuman temple in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, has raised serious concerns about the government’s intent and the communal implications of its actions. Uncovered during an anti-encroachment drive, the temple had reportedly been locked since 1978 following communal riots that displaced the local Hindu community. Now, decades later, its “rediscovery” has been celebrated by BJP leaders and the state administration as a reclaiming of “heritage,” yet this timeline raises critical questions about its timing and motive.

Notably, following the Supreme Court’s recent stay on surveys of religious places, which was issued to prevent further exacerbation of communal strife, the focus seems to have shifted. Instead of directly targeting contested religious structures, the administration has pivoted to reviving claims over existing sites like the Shiv-Hanuman temple. This new approach suggests an effort to sustain the communal polarisation agenda while adhering to the legal restrictions imposed by the apex court.

The temple’s reopening has been accompanied by heavy security, symbolic gestures, and an intensified narrative of reclaiming lost heritage. Political leaders like Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and other BJP figures have positioned the event as a moment of historical justice. Statements about idols being destroyed and houses being built over the temple land are being amplified, with little evidence provided to substantiate these claims. These assertions are deeply polarising and appear designed to pit communities against each other, especially when made in the backdrop of ongoing administrative action against Muslims in the region.

The disturbing cycle of targeted actions continues

This temple revival is not an isolated incident. It coincides with an intensified crackdown on Muslim communities in Sambhal under the pretext of anti-encroachment and electricity theft drives. These actions are not just administrative measures but appear to be a systematic strategy to marginalise and intimidate Muslims in the region. Several houses and mosques in Muslim-majority areas were accused of electricity theft, with officials alleging they found numerous appliances connected to meters that were switched off. Heavy fines have been imposed, and power connections severed, further destabilising these communities.

Residents have called these actions targeted harassment. They argue that the state government is finding new ways to exert pressure after the Supreme Court barred arbitrary demolitions and surveys of religious sites. As provided by a report of Times of India, Muslim residents in the area, fearing the loss of their homes and belongings, have begun demolishing their own houses, which the administration claims were built on “encroached temple property.” Residents have expressed their helplessness, stating that self-demolition allows them to salvage some possessions before inevitable action by the authorities. This grim scenario highlights the disproportionate burden placed on vulnerable communities, who are left with no choice but to dismantle their lives under the shadow of state-sanctioned aggression. 

A pattern of marginalisation and state attempts to create division- UP government to revisit 1978 Sambhal communal riots cases

The Uttar Pradesh government’s plan to re-open the 1978 Sambhal communal riots cases appears to be another instance of selectively reviving historical incidents to fuel contemporary communal narratives. Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s statements linking Sambhal’s communal history to a broader pattern of victimisation of Hindus reinforce a polarising narrative that risks deepening existing tensions.

Adityanath’s claim that 209 Hindus were killed in communal riots in Sambhal since independence is framed to underline alleged historical injustices, but it sidesteps the broader and more complex realities of communal violence in the region. His assertion that the opposition has remained silent on Hindu casualties while showing concern over recent events not only politicises communal tragedies but also diverts attention from the need for accountability in handling current conflicts.

The decision to revisit the 1978 riots, while ostensibly aimed at ensuring justice, coincides with a series of administrative and legal measures in Sambhal that disproportionately target the Muslim community. Together, these actions create an atmosphere of communal antagonism rather than reconciliation.

Rather than fostering communal harmony or addressing systemic issues, re-opening the 1978 cases risks becoming a tool for perpetuating divisive narratives. Such a move underscores the need for caution and sensitivity in addressing communal histories to prevent further polarisation and escalation of tensions.

Related:

Supreme Court urges UP government to maintain peace and harmony in Sambhal, prohibits the trial court from taking any further steps till January

Sambhal Violence: State crackdown intensifies, thousands accused, and allegations of police misconduct ignite a political and communal crisis in Uttar Pradesh

Sambhal’s darkest hour: 5 dead, scores injured in Mosque survey violence as UP police face allegations of excessive force

Supreme Court issued stay on suits on survey against religious places, interventions had highlighted the Act’s intent to preserve India’s secular character

Supreme Court reinforces due process in demolition cases, lays down stringent guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

The post Uttar Pradesh’s new tactics for harassment: Electricity theft charges, strategic revival of temple, opening up of 1978 Sambhal communal riots cases appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This strategy, aimed at deterring future incidents, is not without precedent. The Yogi Adityanath administration employed a similar tactic in 2020, putting up banners in Lucknow displaying names and photographs of individuals accused of violence during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests. That move, however, was met with severe judicial criticism. (Detailed reports on Sambhal violence can be read here, here and here.)

2020 Allahabad High Court judgment: A scathing rebuttal

In March 2020, the Allahabad High Court took suo moto cognisance of the UP government’s decision to erect banners with personal details of alleged anti-CAA protestors. The court’s observations were unequivocal, labelling the state’s actions as “unwarranted interference in privacy” and “highly unjust.” The division bench, comprising the then Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Ramesh Sinha, ruled that the move violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to privacy and personal liberty.

Rejecting the Advocate General’s defence that the posters aimed to deter violence, the court had stated: “We do not find any necessity for a democratic society for a legitimate aim to have publication of personal data and identity. The accused persons are the accused from whom some compensation is to be recovered and in no manner they are fugitive.”

The court had further emphasised that the state’s actions failed the tests of legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality. It noted the absence of any statutory authority permitting such public shaming and criticised the selective targeting of individuals: “As a matter of fact, the placement of personal data of selected persons reflects colourable exercise of powers by the Executive.”

Additionally, the court reminded the state that its role is to uphold constitutional values, not infringe upon them by stating “Where there is gross negligence on part of public authorities and government, where the law is disobeyed and the public is put to suffering, and where the precious values of the Constitution are subjected to injuries, a constitutional court can very well take notice of that at its own.”

The bench ordered the immediate removal of the banners and directed the government to file a compliance report. The judgment remains a landmark assertion of individual rights against executive overreach.

The judgment can be read here.

A repeat of the past or a deliberate defiance?

The Sambhal administration’s decision to resurrect the controversial practice of ‘naming and shaming’ reeks of disregard for constitutional values and judicial precedent. The Allahabad High Court’s 2020 ruling left no ambiguity about the illegality and unconstitutionality of such actions. Yet, the state government appears undeterred, prioritising populist optics over the principles of justice and rule of law.

This move raises troubling questions about the UP government’s commitment to upholding citizens’ fundamental rights. By persisting with tactics that have already been judicially condemned, the state signals a disturbing willingness to defy constitutional safeguards for political expediency. Instead of addressing the root causes of communal tensions, the administration risks stoking further divisions by weaponising public shaming as a tool of governance.

The brazen defiance of past judicial directives is not just a legal misstep but an affront to the very fabric of a democratic society. The right to privacy, due process, and equal protection under the law cannot be sacrificed at the altar of authoritarian governance. If left unchecked, this pattern of state overreach threatens to erode the trust of the governed and weaken the constitutional bedrock that holds India together.

Related:

Supreme Court urges UP government to maintain peace and harmony in Sambhal, prohibits the trial court from taking any further steps till January

Sambhal Violence: State crackdown intensifies, thousands accused, and allegations of police misconduct ignite a political and communal crisis in Uttar Pradesh

Uttarakhand: Despite BJP Govt Assurance to Contrary in HC, Hindu Mahapanchayat Held in Uttarkashi

Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque

The post UP government’s ‘naming and shaming’ tactic: A repeat of constitutional defiance appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Based on the hearing, the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar decided to keep the petition filed by the Shahi Jama Masjid Committee pending. However, the Court directed the Masjid Committee to first approach the High Court to challenge the trial court’s order directing a survey of the mosque. In its order, the Supreme Court prohibited the trial court from taking any further steps in the matter until January 8, and unless the High Court hears the appeal. The Court also instructed that the survey report prepared by the Advocate Commissioner be kept sealed and unopened until further notice. This decision was made to ensure procedural fairness and avoid any escalation of tensions in the region, highlighting the Court’s focus on preserving peace and maintaining neutrality in a highly sensitive issue.

Emphasis on preservation of peace and neutrality

During the hearing, a bench underscored the need for peace and harmony in Sambhal District. Addressing the Uttar Pradesh administration, the bench stated: “Peace and harmony must be preserved. We must act with complete neutrality and ensure no harm is caused.”

The Supreme Court placed a specific emphasis on the Uttar Pradesh government’s responsibility to maintain communal harmony in the district. It suggested forming mediation committees to help de-escalate tensions and ensure that all parties feel heard in the process.

Details of the proceedings

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the mosque committee, argued that the trial court’s decision was capable of causing “great public mischief” and noted a concerning pattern across multiple cases nationwide. He pointed out that in such cases, the appointment of surveyors on the very first day of filing has become a “modus operandi,” which requires urgent judicial intervention.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, heading the bench, acknowledged that the trial court’s order could be challenged under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and the Constitution. He stated, as per LiveLaw, that “We may have some reservations, but the petitioner must challenge the order before the appropriate forum.” The CJI further clarified that since the order was not appealable under Order 41 of the CPC, a first appeal could not be filed.

The CJI expressed the Court’s intent to maintain peace and harmony in Sambhal District, stressing neutrality in handling the sensitive issue. He remarked, “We are not going into the merits. We don’t want anything to happen in the meantime. Peace and harmony must be preserved. We have to be absolutely, totally neutral and ensure nothing untoward happens.” Addressing the Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, representing the Uttar Pradesh district administration, the CJI emphasised, “We will keep this matter pending, but peace and harmony must be maintained in the meantime.”

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for the respondents, informed the Court that the trial court proceedings were scheduled for January 8, 2025. Ahmadi, in response, urged the Supreme Court to prevent any further steps in the trial court, emphasising the urgency of staying proceedings.

The Supreme Court, in its detailed order, stated that no further steps in the suit would be taken by the trial court without the High Court’s permission. The bench directed that the trial court proceedings remain on hold until January 8, 2025. Additionally, it instructed the respondents and district authorities to maintain peace and suggested forming mediation committees to ensure harmony. The Court also clarified that if the petitioners filed a revision appeal before the appropriate forum, it should be listed within three working days.

In summing up, the Supreme Court reiterated its trust in the district administration and judiciary to ensure neutrality and prevent any escalation of communal tensions. The Court also noted that the trial court must await directions from the High Court before proceeding further. The CJI’s remarks and directives underscored the need to handle the issue with caution, fairness, and a commitment to maintaining public order.

Gist of the Supreme Court’s directives

1. Trial court proceedings: The trial court was directed not to proceed with the case until January 8, 2025, or until the High Court provides further directions.
2. Survey report: The report prepared by the Advocate Commissioner was ordered to be kept in a sealed cover and remain unopened until further instructions.
3. Appeal listing: If the Masjid Committee files a revision appeal before the High Court, the Court directed that it must be listed within three working days to ensure timely resolution.
4. Neutrality and harmony: The Supreme Court emphasised the need for the Uttar Pradesh government and district administration to act with absolute neutrality and ensure communal harmony is preserved in the region.

The Supreme Court’s decision to keep the petition pending demonstrates its intent to closely monitor the situation while ensuring procedural compliance. The case will likely hinge on the High Court’s evaluation of the Masjid Committee’s petition. Meanwhile, the trial court proceedings are frozen, and the Advocate Commissioner’s report remains sealed.

The Court’s directives also highlight the judiciary’s careful balancing act in communal matters, prioritising peace and neutrality while ensuring that legal challenges follow due process. The next developments are expected in January 2025 when the trial court proceedings are scheduled to resume, subject to High Court directions.

This case reflects the ongoing tension between legal claims over historical sites and the imperative to maintain public order, with the judiciary serving as a critical arbiter in these disputes.

Background of the case

The controversy began when the Civil Judge (Senior Division) of Sambhal issued an ex-parte order directing a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Chandausi. The plaintiffs claimed that the mosque was constructed by Mughal emperor Babar in 1526 after demolishing a temple that previously stood at the site. The survey order, however, led to unrest in the area, reportedly resulting in the deaths of four individuals.

The Masjid Committee, represented by Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, challenged the trial court’s decision on multiple grounds. The committee argued that the survey was conducted in “undue haste” without providing the mosque’s representatives an opportunity to present their case. It contended that the order violated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which prohibits the alteration of the character of religious places as they existed on August 15, 1947. Furthermore, the committee pointed out that the Shahi Jama Masjid is a protected ancient monument under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

Ahmadi also argued that such ex-parte orders, which immediately appoint court commissioners, are becoming a “modus operandi” in similar cases across the country, often leading to public mischief.

Detailed reports on Sambhal may be read here and here.

Related:

Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque

Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs

Rajasthan HC finds no caste intent in words like ‘Bhangi’, ‘Neech’, ‘Bhikhari’, ‘Mangani’, drops SC/ST Act charges

The post Supreme Court urges UP government to maintain peace and harmony in Sambhal, prohibits the trial court from taking any further steps till January appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The violence erupted as an aftermath of the survey conducted on the Mosque premises based on a petition that was filed in the UP court urging for ASI survey of the mosque, claiming it had been built on the site of a Hindu temple. Tensions had been brewing in the area since the court directed the survey, which was initially conducted on November 19. A second survey, scheduled for November 24, led to protests as rumours spread that the mosque was being desecrated. The protests quickly escalated into violent clashes with the police, who responded with force, resulting in the deaths of the four victims. The police have insisted that the violence was a result of confrontations between the protestors, but the post-mortem reports confirmed that the victims died of gunshot wounds, and the allegations against the police have continued to mount.

In the aftermath of the violence, a slew of arrests has been made, including of political figures and activists. Samajwadi Party MP Ziaur Rahman Barq and the son of a local MLA, Sohail Iqbal, have been named in FIRs, accused of instigating the violence. The administration has deployed extensive efforts to track down and arrest the culprits, including offering rewards for information. Meanwhile, political leaders, including Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, have raised serious concerns about the role of the state government in the incident, with some claiming that the violence was orchestrated and that the police were acting under political pressure. Allegations of threats against the families of victims, including the forced thumb impressions taken by police from the relatives of the deceased, have further complicated the situation, drawing calls for a Supreme Court-monitored investigation.

With conflicting reports from the police, local witnesses, and political figures, the situation in Sambhal has highlighted deepening divisions, questions of police accountability, and concerns over the administration’s handling of communal tensions in the region. As investigations continue, the community and political leaders alike are demanding justice for the victims and transparency in the probe.

Previous report may be read here.

Aggressive measures in Sambhal after violence

The Uttar Pradesh government is taking aggressive measures in response to the violent clashes in Sambhal on November 24, during the second round of the Shahi Mosque survey. The incident resulted in five deaths and many injured, which included a few police personnel’s, exposing deep fissures in the state’s handling of communal and political tensions.

As per media reports, A.K. Singh, Moradabad Divisional Commissioner, has now announced that authorities have identified 75 suspects through CCTV footage and videos, with ongoing efforts to identify more individuals. To aid their search for the suspects, their photographs will be displayed publicly on hoardings to solicit assistance to UP police in tracing and arresting them. Singh added that the administration also plans to recover damages caused to public property from those identified as perpetrators.

Heavy-handed measures: The Uttar Pradesh government’s response, which includes naming individuals in FIRs and publicly displaying photographs of suspected rioters, has raised serious concerns about due process and the implications of public shaming. The deployment of such measures suggests a push for rapid action but risks creating an atmosphere of fear and mistrust.

At least 25 individuals, including three women, have been arrested, with seven FIRs filed against 25 named individuals and around 3,000 unnamed ones. Among the accused are high-profile figures, including Samajwadi Party MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq and Sohail Iqbal, son of seven-time MLA Iqbal Mehmood. While the state asserts that these measures aim to restore order and accountability, the move is being criticised as politically motivated and disproportionately harsh.

A government spokesperson confirmed that posters of the accused would be displayed in public, adding that rewards might be announced for information leading to their arrests. “The administration is committed to recovering damages and taking strict action against those responsible,” the spokesperson stated. However, critics argue that this approach risks stigmatising entire communities and escalating communal tensions.

Political fallout: The incident has sparked significant political outcry, particularly from the Samajwadi Party (SP). MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq alleged that his inclusion in the FIR was part of a deliberate attempt to silence dissent and deflect from administrative failures. “The police are trying to scapegoat me to hide their incompetence. I will continue to fight for the rights and justice of my people,” Barq declared while speaking to Indian Express.

SP MP Dharmendra Yadav called for a Supreme Court-monitored probe, citing widespread mistrust in the state administration. “This investigation cannot be left to those who are complicit in the violence. Only an independent inquiry under judicial supervision can ensure justice,” he argued to the IE.

The state government’s stance has also drawn criticism from opposition MPs in Parliament. SP MP Dimple Yadav accused the administration of inhumane behaviour and demanded a full discussion on the Sambhal violence. “We will not allow this issue to be swept under the rug,” she said.

Allegations of involvement of political undertones: Adding to the complexity is the narrative pushed by the BJP-led state government, which attributes the violence to long-standing rivalries between two prominent families in Sambhal—the Barqs and the Khans. Minister Nitin Agarwal framed the incident as a “Turk vs Pathan” conflict, claiming that the violence stemmed from political dominance struggles between these communities.

The Barq family, descendants of the Turk community, and the Khan family, representing the Pathans, have been political adversaries for decades, as per the explanation provided by a member of the Yogi government. Zia-ur-Rehman Barq, the current MP, and Iqbal Mehmood, the MLA from Sambhal, represent these rival factions within the Samajwadi Party. This narrative, amplified by sections of the vernacular Hindi media, shifts the focus from administrative failures to communal rivalries, a move critics say is a calculated political distraction.

“The Turk-Pathan dispute has disrupted peace and endangered the safety of ordinary citizens,” Agarwal stated while taking to social media, commending the police for their swift action. However, this framing has been criticised for oversimplifying a complex situation and stoking communal divisions.

A pattern of escalation: The Sambhal violence is not an isolated incident but part of a broader trend of communal tensions in Uttar Pradesh. The state government’s reliance on aggressive policing, public shaming, and property recovery measures underlines a pattern of punitive action often disproportionately affecting minority communities. While these actions are framed as necessary for maintaining law and order, they also reveal a lack of trust in judicial and investigative processes.

The decision to suspend internet services in affected areas and maintain heavy police deployment underscores the administration’s precarious control over the situation. Despite claims of normalcy, these measures indicate a fragile peace, with tensions simmering beneath the surface.

The violence has exposed critical gaps in governance, including the lack of preventive measures and the failure to address underlying communal and political tensions. Instead of fostering dialogue and trust, the state’s response risks alienating communities further and exacerbating the divide.

The administration’s attempts to portray the incident as a product of local rivalries fail to address broader systemic issues. It also deflects accountability for law enforcement’s role in escalating tensions, a concern highlighted by opposition leaders and local residents alike.

Without a transparent and impartial investigation, the state risks deepening divisions and eroding public confidence in its ability to maintain peace and justice. The crackdown in Sambhal raises pressing questions about the balance between maintaining order and upholding democratic values, questions that the Uttar Pradesh government must confront with urgency and accountability.

Details about the FIRs file by the state police

A total of seven First Information Reports (FIRs) have been registered in connection with the violence that broke out in Sambhal, of which five are in Sambhal Kotwali and two in Nakhasa police station. Among those named in the FIRs are SP MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq and Sohail Iqbal. Both are accused of inciting the mob violence that resulted in the deaths of four individuals and left many others, including police personnel, injured.

Incident and FIR Details: Advocate Qamar Hussain, who is involved in the case, spoke to SabrangIndia and provided them with details regarding the FIRs filed in the case. The FIR filed by Deputy Collector Ramesh Babu (FIR 336 filed in Sambhal PS) on November 24 describes the situation as follows: “Around 9:10 am, while the survey was being conducted in compliance with a directive from the court, a crowd of 800-900 unidentified individuals arrived at the Jama Masjid, reportedly armed with deadly weapons. The police and administrative officials, including Babu, tried to engage with the crowd and informed them that the survey was being conducted under a court order and that the mosque would not be harmed in any way. Despite these assurances, the crowd refused to disperse and continued to escalate the situation. The mob allegedly stole weapons and ammunition from the police, including a 9mm pistol, cartridges, a box of rubber bullets, and plastic pellets, which were reportedly used during the scuffle.”

Inspector Tomar, in FIR 337 filed in Sambhal PS, described the mob as “chanting religious slogans and moving towards the mosque with the intent to disrupt the survey.” Tomar also noted that the police attempted to reason with the crowd, but they were met with aggression and resistance. He further claimed that when the police declared the assembly unlawful and warned of the use of force, the mob began firing at the officers, leading to an intense confrontation. Tomar reported that many police officers were injured in the exchange, and the mob also damaged public and private property, including government vehicles. To control the situation, the police resorted to using water cannons, followed by the deployment of tear gas shells and rubber bullets, in line with orders from the District Magistrate to use “non-lethal force” in an attempt to disperse the crowd.

As provided by Advocate Qamar Hussain, in the two FIRs filed in the Nakhasa PS (FIR 304 and 305), three Muslim women have been identified in one and 6 Muslim men have been identified in the other, with a total of 350 people having been booked unidentified.

In FIR 334 of Sambhal PS, 800 unidentified people have been booked.

When asked by SabrangIndia if any case had been filed by the police against the group of people shouting the slogan of “Jai Shri Ram” while accompanying the survey team, Advocate Hussain said “there is no mention of these people anywhere. What can we even do? All the people accused and arrested are Muslims”.

Arrests and legal charges: As of now, 25 individuals have been arrested in connection with the violence, which includes 3 women and at least 3 minors. with charges under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023) BNS including Section 190 (vandalism), Section 191 (rioting), Section 132 (assaulting a public servant), Section 109 (attempt to murder), and Section 326-f (mischief by fire or explosives). Additionally, charges have been filed under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, for the intentional destruction of property using fire or explosives, and the Arms Act, 1959, for the illegal possession and acquisition of firearms.

The ongoing investigation is being closely monitored, and authorities are considering the invocation of the stringent National Security Act (NSA) against those involved in the violence. Moradabad Divisional Commissioner Aunjaneya Kumar Singh confirmed that efforts are being made to identify and arrest all the perpetrators of the violence, with a heightened focus on accountability for those who caused damage to public property.

SP MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq, condemned the survey and claimed that the violence was a premeditated attack against Muslims. He alleged that the survey was part of a broader effort to target the Muslim community, citing the way in which the Places of Worship Act had allegedly been violated. In his statement to the media, Barq argued that such actions were part of a wider pattern of marginalising Muslims in India. “People were stopped from offering Namaz, and the survey was conducted hastily without understanding the community’s concerns,” Barq stated. He also questioned the necessity of conducting a second survey, suggesting that the entire incident was orchestrated to inflame tensions.

Continuing investigation: The FIRs have named Barq and Sohail Iqbal, alongside 2,750 other unnamed individuals. The authorities are currently working to identify and apprehend more individuals involved in the violence. The investigation is still ongoing, and police are conducting further searches to gather evidence and identify additional suspects. The situation remains volatile, and the outcome of the investigation will likely have significant implications for both local governance and communal relations in the region.

Akhilesh Yadav’s criticism of Sambhal violence and police actions

Samajwadi Party (SP) chief and Kannauj MP, Akhilesh Yadav, has strongly criticised both the administration and the petitioners involved in the events that led to the violence in Sambhal on November 24, 2024. Yadav has accused the administration of mishandling the situation, which led to unnecessary bloodshed. As per reports, Yadav alleged that the police responded to stone-pelting by local residents by firing bullets from both their official and private weapons, an incident that he claimed was captured on video. Yadav’s accusations point to a grave misuse of power by the police, further aggravating the already volatile situation in Sambhal.

Political allegations and arrests: The violence has also sparked a political row, with several members of the Samajwadi Party, including MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq, being arrested. Despite Barq’s absence from the scene, his name was included in the FIRs, which Yadav described as politically motivated. He questioned the integrity of the investigation, claiming that Barq had not even been in Sambhal during the violence. Yadav’s statement implies that the government is using these arrests as a means of political targeting rather than addressing the root causes of the violence.

Threats to victims’ families: One of the most disturbing allegations made by Yadav concerns the treatment of the families of victims. Yadav urged the Supreme Court to take cognizance of claims that the Uttar Pradesh Police had threatened the family members of Naeem, one of the five victims. According to media reports, around 20 policemen visited the family on the night of November 25, warning them against speaking to the media about the incident.

Naeem’s brother, Tasleem, who spoke to the Quint, claimed that the police had taken his thumb impression on a blank piece of paper. Tasleem, who is illiterate, expressed fear that the authorities might write something incriminating on the blank paper. Yadav condemned this action as a criminal act and called for immediate judicial intervention, urging the Supreme Court to hold those responsible accountable.

Naeem, a sweetmeat shop owner, was out buying groceries when the violence erupted as per the report of the Observer Post. His brother, Tasleem, has stated that Naeem was unaware of the clashes and was simply going about his daily routine when he was shot and killed by the police. Tasleem’s account paints a picture of an innocent man caught in a tragic and unnecessary escalation of violence, further fuelling the claims of police misconduct.

In his statements, Yadav underscored the need for judicial scrutiny of the entire incident, demanding accountability from the authorities and calling for the intervention of the Supreme Court to ensure that justice is served to the victims and their families. He concluded by expressing hope that the court would take cognizance of the situation and prevent such incidents from recurring in the future.

Questioning the survey and role of BJP activists: Yadav further questioned the necessity of conducting a second survey of the mosque, given that the first survey, conducted on November 19, had gone without incident. He argued that if a second survey was deemed necessary, the local administration should have consulted with the community to prevent unnecessary tensions. The lack of dialogue, according to Yadav, contributed to the violence.

Additionally, Yadav speculated that BJP activists may have been involved in the violence, suggesting that they were present during the second survey and were seen raising provocative slogans. He raised concerns about the administration’s failure to address these provocations, which, according to him, led to the escalation of the situation. Yadav’s comments highlight what he believes is a deliberate attempt by the administration to ignore the provocations and prevent the violence from being defused.

Yadav’s statements also carried a veiled criticism of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. He suggested that there is a political rift within the BJP leadership, particularly between the central leadership in Delhi and the state leadership in Lucknow. Yadav implied that this rift is exacerbating tensions in the state, with both factions engaged in a competition for political dominance. He criticized the BJP for using divisive tactics that undermine communal harmony, which he believes directly contributed to the unrest in Sambhal.

Arbitrary arrests

On Sunday night, Uttar Pradesh Police arrested Muslim activist Javed Mohammed for a Facebook post he shared regarding the recent violence in Sambhal, which resulted in the deaths of six Muslims. Mohammed’s post was reportedly critical of the police’s use of force during the protests against the survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal. The authorities accused him of spreading unrest and took action under Sections 126, 135, and 117 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertain to various offenses related to public order and incitement.

Mohammed was arrested from his rented residence in Prayagraj, a city in Uttar Pradesh. After his arrest, the police forced him to delete the Facebook post in question. Despite his arrest, he was granted bail on the next day itself, but he spent an additional day in custody due to his failure to meet the bail conditions. Specifically, he was unable to provide the required bail bond and two sureties at the time. Mohammed was then released on November 26, 2024, once he satisfied these bail requirements.

Javed Mohammed, 58, has a history of being a vocal critic of the Uttar Pradesh government, particularly its handling of Muslim issues. Notably, in June 2022, he was accused of being the “mastermind” behind a protest in Prayagraj that was sparked by derogatory remarks made by BJP leaders about Prophet Mohammed. The protest led to widespread unrest, and Mohammed was arrested on June 10, 2022, in connection with the event. He was imprisoned for 21 months before being granted bail in March 2024. In a related development, Mohammed’s family was allegedly subjected to mistreatment during his recent arrest. His wife and daughter were reportedly “illegally detained” by the police on the night he was taken into custody. According to reports, the police released them only after they were coerced into giving assurances that they would not return home or interfere with the demolition of their house, which was scheduled for the following day.

It is essential to note that Mohammed has vehemently denied all the allegations against him, asserting that they are politically motivated. He has also taken legal action against the demolition of his house, challenging it in court, calling the destruction of his property unlawful and an act of retaliation.

Claims of protestors firing at each other false: Zafar Ali, the chairperson of the Shahi Jama Masjid’s managing committee

On November 25, the administration in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, further found itself embroiled in controversy after Zafar Ali, the chairperson of the Shahi Jama Masjid’s managing committee, publicly accused the police of firing bullets at the crowd during the violent clash. Ali’s claims directly contradicted the police’s official narrative, which maintained that they had used only non-lethal methods such as tear gas, lathi-charge, and rubber pellet guns to disperse the crowd. Ali’s statements added to the tension, as they suggested the police were responsible for the deaths, not the protestors as the police had suggested.

Zafar Ali’s allegations and police response: Ali, in a press conference on November 25, had claimed that he had witnessed the police firing at the crowd during the chaos that erupted over the survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. As per the report of The Wire, Ali had stated, “I saw that the police were firing bullets. It happened right in front of me. There was no bullet fired from the public in my presence.” This assertion directly contradicted the police’s statement, which claimed that the deaths were a result of gunfire from country-made weapons used by members of the mob. The police further suggested that the situation was chaotic, with individuals firing on each other, and assured that a magisterial probe would clarify the circumstances.

Following his public accusations, the police summoned Ali for questioning. The authorities also held their own press briefing, calling his allegations “misleading” and accusing them of being “politically motivated.” Despite the backlash, Ali was allowed to return home after his questioning, with the police clarifying that he had not been detained or arrested.

Police claims vs. Ali’s eyewitness account: The violence resulted in the deaths of four Muslim men, all of whom died from gunshot wounds. The police have suggested that the injuries were caused by bullets from country-made weapons, commonly known as “desi kattas,” which were reportedly in the hands of the protestors. However, Ali maintained that the police were armed with similar weapons and were the ones responsible for firing at the crowd. He further added that the police had also vandalised and set fire to their own vehicles near the mosque, casting doubt on the police’s account of events.

Ali’s account has raised questions about the authenticity of the police’s narrative. He questioned the logic behind the claim that protestors shot at each other, stating, “If they had to fire, they would have fired at the police and not the public. This is something to think about.” This contradiction between Ali’s statement and the police’s version has led to heightened scepticism regarding the actions of law enforcement on that day.

The lead-up to the violence- Rumours and miscommunication: In addition to his claims about the police’s actions during the incident, Ali also provided further context regarding the days leading up to the violence. He revealed that on the night of November 23, he had been informed by Sambhal’s Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Vandana Mishra, and Circle Officer (CO) Anuj Kumar Chaudhary, that a second survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid would take place the next morning. Ali stated that he had not given a “No Objection” to the survey, yet it went ahead regardless the following day.

The morning of the survey saw the area heavily surrounded by police, and Ali claimed that the SDM insisted on draining the water from the Hauz (water tank) even though the Superintendent of Police (SP) and District Magistrate (DM) had suggested that a simpler measurement could be taken with a stick. Ali’s description of the situation indicated a lack of coordination and communication between the local authorities and raised concerns about the handling of the survey.

Ali also pointed to the spread of a damaging rumour that claimed the Jama Masjid was being dug up without the court’s permission. This rumour caused panic in the community, and soon, large crowds began to gather near the mosque. According to Ali, this rumour sparked the violence and chaos that ultimately led to the deaths and injuries. The misinformation surrounding the mosque’s survey may have been a key factor in escalating the situation from a routine survey to a violent confrontation.

The conflicting statements from Zafar Ali and the police have only added to the tension and confusion surrounding the incident. While the police have promised a thorough investigation, including a magisterial probe, the allegations against them remain unresolved. Ali’s eye-witness testimony, combined with the rumoured causes of the violence, calls into question the transparency and fairness of the police’s actions during the event. As the investigation continues, the community and the wider public await further clarity on the role the police played in the tragic events of November 24.

Addressing the fault lines- Need of the hour

The Sambhal violence serves as a stark reminder of the deep communal, political, and administrative fissures in Uttar Pradesh. The state government’s aggressive response—ranging from arrests and FIRs to public shaming and punitive measures—underscores its prioritisation of swift action over due process. However, these tactics risk further alienating communities, exacerbating tensions, and eroding public trust in the justice system.

The framing of the violence as a result of local rivalries, while politically expedient, deflects attention from the systemic failures in governance and law enforcement. Allegations of police misconduct, coupled with the narrative of communal rivalries, reveal a troubling pattern where accountability is side-lined in favour of divisive rhetoric.

Calls for a Supreme Court-monitored investigation highlight the widespread mistrust in the state administration’s ability to impartially handle the situation. Without a transparent, unbiased inquiry into the events leading up to and during the violence, the cycle of mistrust and division is likely to persist.

The Sambhal incident is not an isolated case but part of a broader trend of escalating communal tensions and heavy-handed responses in Uttar Pradesh. For long-term peace and stability, the state must address the underlying causes of these tensions, foster dialogue, and rebuild trust in democratic institutions. Balancing law and order with the protection of constitutional rights is essential to prevent such incidents from becoming recurring flashpoints in an already polarised environment.

Related:

Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque

Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs

Rajasthan HC finds no caste intent in words like ‘Bhangi’, ‘Neech’, ‘Bhikhari’, ‘Mangani’, drops SC/ST Act charges

The post Sambhal Violence: State crackdown intensifies, thousands accused, and allegations of police misconduct ignite a political and communal crisis in Uttar Pradesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This tragedy is not just about the lives lost but also about the failure of those tasked with protecting lives and maintaining order. The administration insists it used “minor force” to quell the protests, but eyewitness accounts and on-ground visuals tell a different story—one of heavy-handedness, tear gas, pellet guns, and a disregard for measured restraint. Instead of calming tensions, the police’s actions escalated the violence, turning a fragile situation into a full-blown disaster. Families of the deceased, already reeling from grief, are now grappling with the knowledge of the state, which should have protected their loved ones, may have caused to their deaths.

While officials insist that gunfire originated solely from the protesters, autopsy reports indicating deaths caused by .315 bore firearms undermine this assertion and cast doubt on the legitimacy of their account.

गोली चलाओ, मारो-मारो…भो&&& वालों को

सोचिए वर्दी के पीछे छिपी ये मानसिकता कानून या न्याय कैसे कर सकती है?

स़भल म़े एक पुलिस वाले को सुनिए pic.twitter.com/ZbCGa6fDqB

— Nigar Parveen (@NigarNawab) November 24, 2024

The premature and unprovoked lathi charges seen in other videos only added fuel to the fire. Peaceful protesters, raising slogans with no evidence of stone-pelting, were subjected to indiscriminate violence by law enforcement. These actions turned what could have remained a peaceful demonstration into a violent confrontation, marking a failure of the police to fulfil their primary duty of maintaining order without escalating tensions.

#Sambhal, UP:
Video 1) Sambhal SP Krishan Kumar Bishnoi claims “bheed ke kuch log achanak galiyo me se nikalker aaye aur unhone police per pathrav kiya”.

Video 2) Protestors can be seen raising slogans and not a single stone was pelted yet the police resorted to lathicharge.… pic.twitter.com/4xB06vQYMu

— Saba Khan (@ItsKhan_Saba) November 24, 2024

Sambhal, a district with a long-standing reputation for communal harmony, now stands fractured and traumatised. This devastating episode highlights systemic failures at multiple levels: an administration that rushed into action without adequate preparation, a police force that abandoned the principles of restraint and accountability, and a judicial system whose hasty orders acted as a spark in a tinderbox. As the dust settles, the scars left behind by the violence in Sambhal will serve as a grim reminder of how easily institutional failures can upend lives, disrupt communities, and tarnish the very fabric of democracy.

#WATCH | Uttar Pradesh: Visuals from Sambhal where an incident of stone pelting took place when a survey team arrived at the Shahi Jama Masjid to conduct a survey of the mosque. Police used tear gas to control the situation.

Following a petition filed by senior advocate Vishnu… pic.twitter.com/jW6RO6L27Q

— ANI (@ANI) November 24, 2024

Reacting immediately and sharply to the violence, a day after the results to nine by-polls in the state, including the Sambhal seat were declared, Member of Parliament and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav also criticised the Uttar Pradesh state government, alleging that the BJP had orchestrated the violence to divert attention from electoral malpractices and governance failures. Yadav has urged the Supreme Court to take immediate cognisance of the situation, calling for an independent investigation into the incidents. By-polls in UP had taken place on November 20.

“The conspiracy to spread tension in the name of a mosque survey cannot go unchecked. The BJP government and its administration orchestrated this violence to deflect attention from their political manipulations and failures,” Yadav said.

He described the police actions as disproportionate and part of a broader strategy by the BJP to create polarisation for political gain. Yadav emphasised that the BJP had no interest in genuine conflict resolution and instead sought to use communal tension to strengthen its political narrative.

सर्वे के नाम पर तनाव फैलाने की साज़िश का ‘सर्वोच्च न्यायालय’ तुरंत संज्ञान ले और जो अपने साथ सामाजिक सद्भाव बिगाड़ने के उद्देश्य से नारेबाज़ों को ले गये, उनके ख़िलाफ़ शांति और सौहार्द बिगाड़ने का मुक़दमा दर्ज हो और उनके ख़िलाफ़ ‘बार एसोसिएशन’ भी अनुशासनात्मक और दंडात्मक कार्रवाई… pic.twitter.com/9Fj30K4aLm

— Akhilesh Yadav (@yadavakhilesh) November 24, 2024

संभल में शांति की अपील के साथ ही ये भी अपील है कि कोई भी इंसाफ़ की उम्मीद न छोड़े। नाइंसाफ़ी का हुक्म ज़्यादा दिन नहीं चलता सरकार बदलेगी और न्याय का युग आएगा। pic.twitter.com/XE99C72zw9

— Akhilesh Yadav (@yadavakhilesh) November 24, 2024

Fatalities and injuries raise alarm

The district of Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh descended into violence on Sunday, November 24, after a court-ordered survey of the Mughal-era Jama Masjid escalated into violent clashes. By the morning of November 25, the death toll had risen to five, though Moradabad Divisional Commissioner Aunjaneya Kumar Singh officially acknowledged only four. He revealed that one family neither informed the police nor submitted the body for autopsy, raising concerns over transparency and accountability in the administration’s handling of the crisis.

Among the deceased were Naeem (Kot Kurvi locality), Bilal (Sarai Tareen), and Numan (Hayat Nagar), their families grieving the loss of loved ones amidst a turmoil that, many argue, could have been avoided. Injuries from the clashes were widespread, with reports indicating that 20 police personnel, including senior officers, sustained injuries. Officials claimed these injuries resulted from “miscreant gunfire,” but widespread public scepticism has arisen due to video evidence showing police firing live ammunition.

A tragic reflection of police mismanagement and deep contradictions

The tragic events in Sambhal, where five individuals lost their lives and scores were injured, expose a troubling pattern of administrative failure and blatant contradictions in the actions and narratives of law enforcement. What should have been a peaceful legal procedure—a court-ordered survey of a mosque—devolved into chaos, violence, and death. The cracks in the police’s official account, highlighted by eyewitness testimony and video evidence, paint a picture of a deeply flawed approach that not only failed to prevent violence but actively exacerbated it.

The spark for the unrest was a sudden petition claiming that the Jama Masjid stood on the site of a Harihar temple, prompting a court to order an immediate survey, without giving a hearing to the other side (Mosque Committee). The survey nevertheless took place with the local community cooperating fully. Tensions had been simmering since the initial survey earlier in the week. On Sunday, as the survey team arrived, flanked by police and other officials, the situation escalated. According to police accounts, crowds of protesters began gathering near the mosque, shouting slogans and allegedly hurling stones. Divisional Commissioner Singh described the scene as a “coordinated attack” on the police and survey team, alleging that three separate groups launched assaults from different directions. Police officials, including Superintendent of Police Krishna Kumar Vishnoi, claimed to have used only “minor force” to disperse the crowd, including tear gas and lathi charges. However, these claims fall apart under scrutiny when juxtaposed with the evidence emerging from the ground.

The police, has been silent on the questioning and deeply troubling presence of unauthorised individuals accompanying the survey team and chanting the polarising slogan “Jai Shri Ram.” In today’s fraught socio-political climate, this chant, while religious for some, has become a symbol of majoritarian aggression. For it to resound during a legally sensitive survey of a disputed mosque was not only inflammatory but deeply irresponsible. These individuals, unauthorised to participate in the survey process, actively inflamed tensions, turning what should have been a neutral court-directed operation into a spectacle of intimidation. The administration’s failure to restrain them reflects a troubling bias and raises critical questions: Who allowed these individuals to accompany the team, and why was their inflammatory behaviour permitted in an already charged environment?

जब सर्वे करने जा रहे थे तो ये नारेबाज़ी क्यूं हुई?
क्या कोर्ट का आर्डर था कि जय श्रीराम का नारा लगाते हुए जाएं?
साफ़ दिख रहा है कि उद्देश्य भड़काना था। #Sambhalpic.twitter.com/xD4JMD3eBT

— Tarun Gautam (@TARUNspeakss) November 24, 2024

Social media is awash with disturbing videos that directly challenge the police narrative and point to excessive use of force. One particularly harrowing clip shows riot-gear-clad officers cornering individuals in narrow smoke-filled alleys, firing indiscriminately with live rounds, raising serious concerns about the proportionality of the police response. Another video captures officers pulling individuals from a peaceful protest and beating them with batons, despite there being no visible provocation. Such scenes starkly contradict police claims of restraint and raise pressing questions about accountability.

In another video, which is a drone footage of the Sambhal violence shot during the survey being conducted by the team of advocate commissioner, a cleric could be heard requesting the mob, vandalising a car parked near the mosque, to disperse.

Drone footage of the Sambhal violence shot during the survey being conducted by the team of advocate commissioner. A cleric could be heard requesting the mob, vandalising a car parked near the mosque, to disperse. pic.twitter.com/ja45VOqisK

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) November 25, 2024

The videos, eyewitness testimonies, and the administration’s actions expose the glaring disconnect between the police’s claims and the reality on the ground. They paint a damning picture of an institution unprepared and unwilling to uphold its duty of impartiality and restraint. Sambhal’s tragedy is a grim indictment of law enforcement’s failure to protect lives and ensure fairness, leaving deep scars on a community already grappling with distrust and fear. This incident underscores an urgent need for accountability and systemic reform, lest such tragedies continue to erode the very fabric of justice and democracy.

In view of these contradictions, District Magistrate Manish Pensiya’s statements about maintaining “communal harmony” ring hollow when juxtaposed with the state’s heavy-handed approach. The administration’s failure to anticipate the volatile situation, despite clear signs of tension in the days leading up to the survey, reveals a glaring lack of foresight and preparation. 

Jama Masjid in Chandausi: A heritage monument caught in the crossfire

The Jama Masjid in Chandausi, located in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal district, is not just a religious edifice but a nationally recognised heritage monument. Declared a “protected monument” under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of 1904, it has held this status since December 22, 1920. The mosque, prominently featured on the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) Agra Circle website, represents architectural brilliance and historical significance. Yet, this symbol of India’s shared cultural legacy is now at the centre of a highly contentious legal and communal battle.

Allegations that the mosque was constructed over the ruins of an alleged Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Harihar have placed it under a spotlight fraught with historical revisionism, legal dilemmas, and communal discord. The claim, rooted in assertions that the temple was destroyed by Mughal Emperor Babur in 1529, has been amplified by a petition filed by eight individuals, several of whom have a history of involvement in contentious disputes over religious sites. Their demands range from recognising the mosque as a temple to permitting Hindu worship at the site.

This case raises significant concerns about the preservation of heritage, judicial accountability, and the ethical responsibility of maintaining communal harmony. One can say that the legal proceedings surrounding the Jama Masjid reflect an erosion of procedural fairness, with decisions appearing to prioritise political expediency over historical or legal integrity.

The judicial response and its fallout: The controversy deepened when, on November 19, 2024, Civil Judge (Senior Division) Aditya Singh issued an immediate directive to survey the mosque based on the petitioners’ claims, without serving notice or hearing the other side. Within hours, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, and a survey was ordered to include videography and photography. While ostensibly aimed at determining the mosque’s historical foundations, this decision has been criticised for its unprecedented speed and lack of procedural safeguards.

Key issues surrounding the court’s response include:

1. Bypassing procedural norms: The court did not provide adequate time for the mosque committee, ASI, or other stakeholders to respond to the allegations. The hurried survey order—issued on the same day the petition was filed—raises questions about judicial neutrality and accountability, especially in a case involving a monument of national importance.
2. Contravention of monument protection laws: The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, strictly prohibits unauthorised surveys, excavations, or alterations to protected sites. The court’s directive, issued without explicit approval from the ASI, undermines these protections and sets a potentially dangerous precedent.
3. Most questionably, the order defied the basics of natural justice as it did not hear the Mosque Committee before passing the order.
4. Encouraging polarising agendas: By validating the claims of the petitioners without substantial evidence, the judiciary inadvertently bolstered narratives that aim to communalise historical monuments. Such actions risk normalising attempts to reinterpret historical legacies through a divisive lens.
5. Judicial overreach: The judiciary’s role as an impartial arbiter appears compromised in this instance. The extraordinary haste with which the survey was ordered has led to widespread scepticism about the court’s motivations, further eroding public trust in its independence.

It is essential to that the individuals behind the petition include figures like Advocate Hari Shankar Jain, known for his involvement in controversial and high-profile disputes such as the Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath case. Their claims, often rooted in unverified assertions of historical wrongs, form part of a larger pattern aimed at reclaiming purported Hindu heritage sites. The said strategy is less about historical accuracy and more about advancing a communal agenda that deepens societal divides. The broader implications of such cases are profound, the present one can even call it violence as a consequence of judicial haste. They risk transforming judicial processes into tools for majoritarian politics, undermining the secular fabric of the Constitution. In recent times, there have been repeated cautions against using history as a battleground for contemporary disputes, but these warnings seem increasingly unheeded in the current climate.

Opposition criticises UP government over Sambhal violence, alleges conspiracy

The violence in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal district has drawn sharp criticism from opposition leaders, who have accused Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and the ruling BJP government of orchestrating unrest under the guise of conducting a court-ordered mosque survey. Congress and Samajwadi Party leaders have described the incident as a deliberate attempt to incite communal tensions and destabilise the region’s long-standing harmony.

Congress terms it a “well-planned conspiracy”: Congress leader Pawan Khera condemned the Sambhal violence in unequivocal terms, calling it a “well-planned conspiracy” by the Yogi Adityanath-led government. Khera, Chairman of the Media and Publicity Department of the All India Congress Committee (AICC), accused the state administration of fostering a climate of fear and violence.

“No citizen in Uttar Pradesh is ‘safe’ under CM Adityanath, who gave the reprehensible slogan of ‘Batenge toh Katenge’ (Those who divide will die). This is evident from the deplorable incidents in Sambhal today,” Khera said in a strongly worded statement.

Referring to widely circulated videos of police allegedly firing at protesters, Khera argued that these visuals reveal the “horrifying result of a well-planned conspiracy” by the BJP and RSS. He claimed the violence in Sambhal was orchestrated to fracture the communal harmony of western Uttar Pradesh, a region historically known for its peace and goodwill.

Khera went further, alleging that the BJP government had no intention of resolving the mosque dispute in a just or peaceful manner. “In this entire matter, the BJP neither wanted the survey to proceed nor to stop it; its sole objective was to destroy harmony,” he asserted.

The Congress leader further accused the BJP of perpetuating hatred and systematically targeting minority communities, calling the Modi-Yogi administration a “double-assault government” that considers minorities as second-class citizens.

Khera criticised the judiciary’s role, stating that the court’s order for an immediate survey of the mosque came without giving the mosque committee or local Muslim leaders a fair hearing. He claimed that this rushed decision was a deliberate strategy by the government to provoke unrest.

“It is public knowledge that the court ordered an immediate survey without hearing the other side. No action was taken against the rioters who accompanied the survey team, making it clear that the Yogi government has intensified the politics of violence and hatred post the state by-elections,” Khera remarked.

Khera also invoked Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s campaign against divisive politics, urging the people of Sambhal to reject hatred. “Rahul Gandhi has continuously spoken about ‘Nafrat Ke Bazaar Mein Mohabbat Ki Dukaan’ (spreading love in a marketplace of hatred). In this spirit, I appeal to the people of Sambhal to maintain unity, amity, and harmony while legally protecting their rights,” he said.

Our statement on the tragic and avoidable riots in Sambhal:

संभल में हुए दुखद एवं परिहार्य दंगों पर कांग्रेस पार्टी का वक्तव्य: pic.twitter.com/uOpKjYbw8g

— Pawan Khera (@Pawankhera) November 24, 2024

Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra also took to ‘X’ to share their displeasure on the manner in which the UP government handled the situation.

संभल, उत्तर प्रदेश में हालिया विवाद पर राज्य सरकार का पक्षपात और जल्दबाज़ी भरा रवैया बेहद दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण है। हिंसा और फायरिंग में जिन्होंने अपनों को खोया है उनके प्रति मेरी गहरी संवेदनाएं हैं।

प्रशासन द्वारा बिना सभी पक्षों को सुने और असंवेदनशीलता से की गई कार्रवाई ने माहौल और…

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) November 25, 2024

संभल, उत्तर प्रदेश में अचानक उठे विवाद को लेकर राज्य सरकार का रवैया बेहद दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण है। इतने संवेदनशील मामले में बिना दूसरा पक्ष सुने, बिना दोनों पक्षों को विश्वास में लिए प्रशासन ने जिस तरह ​हड़बड़ी के साथ कार्रवाई की, वह दिखाता है कि सरकार ने खुद माहौल खराब किया। प्रशासन ने…

— Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (@priyankagandhi) November 25, 2024

A broader pattern of state-endorsed violence: Both opposition parties have pointed to a recurring pattern in the BJP’s approach to governance in Uttar Pradesh, accusing the Yogi administration of fostering communal divisions as a political tool. Khera and Yadav highlighted how incidents like the violence in Sambhal have become disturbingly frequent, where minorities bear the brunt of state actions.

Khera stated that the BJP government has intensified its communal agenda following recent by-elections, further eroding trust between communities. “The BJP is guilty of setting fire to the peace and harmony of Sambhal. Their communal politics is a calculated attempt to keep society fractured and polarised,” Khera argued.

The opposition’s critique of the Sambhal violence has raised serious questions about the handling of the incident by the state government. Both Congress and the Samajwadi Party have demanded accountability from the Yogi administration and a fair inquiry into the events leading to the violence.

With videos and eyewitness accounts contradicting police narratives, the demand for an impartial investigation is gaining traction. Meanwhile, the incident has further polarised an already charged political environment, with the opposition accusing the BJP of prioritising its communal agenda over the welfare and safety of the state’s citizens.

Sambhal District under strict restrictions amid post-riot tensions

In the wake of the recent violent clashes during the court-mandated mosque survey, authorities in Sambhal district have implemented stringent measures to restore order and prevent further unrest. The district administration has imposed prohibitory orders, restricted movement of outsiders, suspended internet services, and issued a series of directives to curb potential threats.

As per multiple media news, the Sambhal District Magistrate has issued a formal notification barring the entry of external individuals, social organisations, or public representatives into the district without prior approval. The notification, dated October 1, 2024, and referenced as order number 942/Judicial Assistant/Section-163/2024, aims to contain the volatile situation in the region.

“A prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Indian Citizens Security Code, 2023, has been imposed in Sambhal district and will remain effective until November 30,” the circular states. It further specifies, “No external person, social organisation, or public representative will be allowed to enter the district without the explicit permission of the competent authority. Violating this order will be treated as a punishable offence under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.”

The directive underscores the urgency of maintaining order and preventing external influences from exacerbating the fragile situation. Officials have emphasised that the order is integral to the overarching prohibitory measures implemented in early October and is to be enforced immediately.

In addition to this, internet services across the district have been suspended for 24 hours. The temporary shutdown is intended to curb the spread of misinformation, inflammatory content, and the organisation of disruptive activities through social media platforms.

In a parallel move, the district administration has issued strict prohibitions on the possession or collection of materials that could be used as projectiles or weapons. A notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) explicitly bans citizens from purchasing or stockpiling stones, soda bottles, or any flammable or explosive substances.

The notice warns of strict action against violators, including legal penalties. To reinforce this measure, local municipal authorities have been directed to confiscate construction materials, such as loose bricks or debris, found lying on roads or in public areas.

Detentions and targeted legal actions: As per the UP police statement, the district police have intensified their operations to identify and detain individuals involved in Sunday’s violent clashes. According to the Superintendent of Police, around 20 individuals have been taken into custody so far. These arrests follow allegations of stone-pelting and acts of violence that occurred during the controversial survey of the mosque. The officials have announced plans to charge those detained under the National Security Act (NSA). While law enforcement claims this is necessary to deter future violence, many view it as an overreach designed to intimidate dissenters. The administration has also issued warnings against spreading rumours, threatening legal action against anyone found inciting unrest through social media.

Law enforcement officials have assured the public that further arrests will follow as investigations progress. The local administration has also deployed additional police forces in sensitive areas to maintain peace and deter further incidents. Yet, these measures fail to address the fundamental questions of police misconduct and administrative failure. By focusing solely on punitive actions against protesters, the state has sidestepped its responsibility to investigate its own role in escalating the violence.

Police defence

The deaths in Sambhal, including that of Naeem, have become a flashpoint of conflicting narratives between law enforcement and the victim’s family. Naeem’s parents have accused the police of fatally shooting their son, arguing that his death was the result of unwarranted police firing. Divisional Commissioner Aunjaneya Kumar Singh, however, vehemently denied the allegations, stating that police injuries sustained during the clashes make it implausible for officers to have been the aggressors. “Police cannot shoot at themselves,” Singh asserted, referencing the injuries suffered by law enforcement, including the SP’s Public Relations Officer, who was shot in the leg, and other officers who sustained pellet wounds and fractures. Singh also attempted to deflect blame onto Naeem’s family, stating, “It was the responsibility of the family members to restrain their son if he was planning to throw stones.”

Superintendent of Police (SP) Krishna Kumar Bishnoi added to the official narrative, maintaining that the police employed only pellet guns for crowd control during the clashes.

In one video of SP Krishan Kumar, he can be seen using a loudspeaker to urge the alleged stone-pelters not to indulge in violence.

“Do not spoil your future for these politicians,” he is heard saying through his megaphone in one of the videos.

“नेताओं के चक्कर में अपना भविष्य बर्बाद मत करो” @sambhalpolice
संभल में पथराव और आंसू गैस छोड़ने के बाद हालात बेकाबू, एक गाड़ी में लगाई आग, शांति व्यवस्था की की जा रही अपील। #SambhalJamaMasjid pic.twitter.com/4wksw3zpN4

— Awanish M Vidyarthi (@awanishvidyarth) November 24, 2024

Despite these official accounts, Singh painted a broader picture of chaos, claiming, “There were three groups who were firing at each other. We have evidence, but our priority right now is to restore peace.” This assertion seeks to shift attention away from the police and onto unidentified groups allegedly involved in the violence. Yet, this explanation does little to address the critical question of how Naeem and others sustained gunshot wounds if the police only used pellet guns and tear gas.

#WATCH | Uttar Pradesh: Sambhal DM Rajender Pensiyia says “The survey has been completed. The survey team have been safely taken out. The situation is being brought under control. Strict action will be taken against mischievous elements. No one will be spared.” https://t.co/fsngBQoyfC pic.twitter.com/7RvLNNERKA

— ANI (@ANI) November 24, 2024

Meanwhile, Singh confirmed to PTI that several police personnel had sustained injuries, including the PRO (Public Relations Officer) of the SP, who had been shot in the leg. Additionally, the police circle officer was struck by pellets, a constable suffered a severe head injury, and the deputy collector sustained a fractured leg. Singh’s emphasis on the injuries to police personnel served to bolster the administration’s stance that the violence originated from the protesters, not the authorities.

The conflicting statements from law enforcement officials, combined with the autopsy findings and eyewitness accounts, create a troubling narrative. The administration’s insistence on the protesters’ culpability is sharply contradicted by emerging evidence, including visual records of officers firing live rounds in smoke-filled streets. Singh’s comments, such as suggesting families “restrain” their loved ones, have been widely criticised as attempts to deflect accountability. These discrepancies, coupled with the police’s refusal to address these contradictions transparently, have only deepened public distrust and magnified calls for an independent investigation to establish the truth behind the tragic events in Sambhal.

An uncertain path ahead

As Sambhal grapples with the aftermath of Sunday’s clashes, the district remains on edge. The closure of schools and markets reflects a community paralysed by fear and uncertainty. While the administration insists it is working to restore normalcy, its actions have done little to inspire confidence. The incident in Sambhal is a stark reminder of the volatile interplay between legal disputes over religious sites and the state’s handling of communal tensions. It also underscores the urgent need for accountability in law enforcement, especially in sensitive situations where lives are at stake. Until these issues are addressed, legally and constitutionally, incidents like these will continue to mar the state’s fragile social fabric.

Related:

Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque

Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs

Rajasthan HC finds no caste intent in words like ‘Bhangi’, ‘Neech’, ‘Bhikhari’, ‘Mangani’, drops SC/ST Act charges

The post Sambhal’s darkest hour: 5 dead, scores injured in Mosque survey violence as UP police face allegations of excessive force appeared first on SabrangIndia.