The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea seeking the quashing of an FIR that invoked charges of criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy—offences which, as per the Court’s observations, clearly arose out of a civil money dispute. Notably, the petitioner was already facing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (cheque dishonour), and yet, the state police had layered additional criminal allegations without any legal basis.

As per the report of LiveLaw, expressing sharp disapproval, CJI Khanna had exclaimed, “This is wrong! What is happening in UP? Every day, civil suits are being converted to criminal cases. That’s not correct. That’s a breakdown of the Rule of Law completely.” The Court further declared the summoning order and chargesheet to be legally untenable, remarking that failure to repay a debt, by itself, cannot constitute a criminal offence. This is not only an egregious misuse of state power but also a deliberate distortion of criminal law to harass individuals in civil disputes.

Importantly, the Court also directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, and the Investigating Officer (IO) to file affidavits within two weeks, explaining the steps taken to comply with the directives laid down in the landmark judgment Sharif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh (explained below). In that case, the Supreme Court had clearly mandated that chargesheets must contain precise, complete entries and that the investigating officer must distinctly outline the role of each accused, with supporting statements and documents. The Court had emphasised the necessity of these procedural safeguards to ensure that criminal prosecutions are not misused and remain grounded in substantive evidence.

Yet, despite these clear instructions, the UP Police appeared to have completely ignored these safeguards. The CJI, exasperated with the lack of accountability, even hinted at the initiation of contempt proceedings against the IO, stating, “We have made it clear that he has to detail it in the case diary; he has not submitted it. If the case diary is submitted, the IO will have to enter the witness box and say this is the case… Let the IO learn his lesson, this is not the way you file chargesheets.”

Even as counsel for the state sought to deflect responsibility by arguing that the petitioners had not first approached the High Court, the bench remained unconvinced. In a broader reflection on the state of legal practice in UP, the CJI lamented that lawyers seemed to have forgotten the existence of civil jurisdiction altogether, so routine has the misuse of criminal provisions become.

To make matters worse, when the state’s counsel sought a pass-over to find the correct citation of Sharif Ahmed, the bench granted it but not without a stern warning: if compliance is not demonstrated, costs will be levied directly on the UP Police. As per LiveLaw, the Court categorically ordered a stay on trial court proceedings against the accused, with the exception of the pending Section 138 NI Act proceedings, which were unrelated to the present petition.

The bench’s order leaves little ambiguity: “The order taking cognisance, the summoning order as well as the chargesheet filed is clearly contrary to the decision in Sharif Ahmed and others v. State of UP.” It also clarified that the DGP must submit an affidavit outlining steps taken to implement the earlier directives and ensure that such misuse is not repeated.

At a time when state police forces, particularly in Uttar Pradesh, have displayed alarming tendencies to criminalise civil disputes—often to harass individuals or settle scores—the Court has stepped in to reaffirm the boundaries between civil and criminal law. Its scathing observations, tough stance on accountability, and warning of costs signal an institutional intolerance for such arbitrary exercise of power. More importantly, this order reiterates the Court’s commitment to upholding procedural integrity and constitutional norms. The UP government, on the other hand, finds itself once again in the dock for fostering a legal culture that prioritises coercion over due process. The Supreme Court’s intervention in this case is not only timely but necessary—for justice, for precedent, and for the restoration of rule of law in a state where it appears to be fast eroding.

Previous instance of Supreme Court rebuking UP police for misusing criminal law in civil disputes

On November 28, 2024, the Supreme Court had delivered a sharp reprimand to the Uttar Pradesh Police for repeatedly turning civil disputes—especially land-related conflicts—into criminal cases. Hearing an anticipatory bail plea by an individual facing multiple FIRs tied to property issues, the Court warned that it would not hesitate to issue orders that the UP’s Director General of Police (DGP) would “remember for the rest of his life” if such misuse continued.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan had questioned the credibility of the numerous FIRs filed and the intent behind them. Appearing for the State, senior advocate Rana Mukherjee argued that the petitioner had not joined the investigation. However, the Court observed that the petitioner likely feared further false cases and arbitrary arrest. As per the report in LiveLaw, the bench had commented, “He must not be appearing because he knows you will register another false case and arrest him. Every time there is a new FIR—how many can the prosecution actually sustain?”

The bench had pointed out that accusing someone of land grabbing based on a legitimate property purchase through a registered sale deed was a clear misuse of criminal law. “Is it a civil dispute or a criminal one?” the Court asked, emphasising that the UP Police were crossing a line by treating civil disagreements as criminal matters.

The bench also addressed the systemic issue of police overreach. It cautioned that if this practice continued unchecked, the Court would impose strict action against the officers involved. When the State’s counsel attempted to shift responsibility, the Court made it clear that the issue lay with the conduct of the police and urged Mukherjee to ensure the message was conveyed clearly to the authorities.

In its interim direction, the Court permitted the petitioner to join the investigation but barred the police from arresting him without prior permission. The bench stated that any genuine need to arrest should first be justified before the Court. It also warned that officers acting in bad faith would face not only suspension but possibly more serious consequences.

To ensure transparency, the Court instructed the police to issue summons via mobile, clearly mentioning the date, time, and location for appearance before the Investigating Officer.

The Court’s intervention reflects growing concern over the casual criminalisation of civil matters in Uttar Pradesh. This case adds to a series of instances where the judiciary has had to step in to curb the misuse of police powers in the state.

The order may be read here.

Supreme Court guidelines on proper filing of chargesheets

In a judgment delivered on May 1, 2024, the Supreme Court laid down clear directions regarding the filing of charge sheets under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. The court stressed the importance of a well-drafted chargesheet for enabling a magistrate to take cognisance of an offence.

A bench of the then Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti had observed that investigating officers must ensure that every column of the chargesheet is filled with clarity and completeness. This is necessary for the court to clearly understand which accused is being charged with what offence and what evidence supports the allegations. The charge sheet must also include the list of witnesses along with their statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. Importantly, the specific role played by each accused must be separately stated.

The bench criticised the widespread practice in some states where police merely reproduce the contents of the FIR and make a general remark on whether an offence appears to have been committed, without citing any supporting material. Such a practice, the court said, defeats the purpose of the chargesheet, which should serve as a basis for the magistrate to take informed decisions.

While the court clarified that the chargesheet need not go into a detailed evaluation of evidence—that being the purpose of the trial—it must at least include the reasons and grounds that led the investigating officer to conclude that an offence had been committed. These basic justifications would enable the magistrate to determine whether there is sufficient basis to take cognisance, issue summons, or frame charges.

The court emphasised that a chargesheet is not meant to be an exhaustive summary of the prosecution’s case, but it must reflect a serious and complete investigation. Based on this record, the magistrate exercises powers under Section 190(1)(b) and Section 204 CrPC. Where doubts arise, or if no offence is made out, the magistrate retains the discretion to choose other available options under the law.

To support its position, the court referred to the landmark case H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi, which outlined the key components of an investigation: visiting the crime scene, fact-finding, making arrests, collecting evidence through witness interviews, searches and seizures, and forming an opinion on whether an offence has occurred.

Additionally, reliance was placed on the recent judgment in Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, where the court directed police officers across India to strictly comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 173(2) CrPC and the relevant State Police Manuals. Any failure to do so, the court said, will be viewed seriously by courts where the police report or chargesheet is filed.

Key guidelines laid down-

1. Complete information required: Chargesheets must contain complete and clear entries in all columns to assist the Magistrate in understanding the offence, the accused’s role, and the supporting evidence.
2. Specific attribution of roles: The role of each accused person must be clearly and separately indicated. General or vague allegations are not acceptable.
3. Mandatory annexures: Statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC and a list of witnesses must be enclosed with the chargesheet.
4. Avoid repetition of FIR: Merely copying the contents of the FIR is insufficient. The chargesheet must reflect the outcome of an independent investigation and present the evidence relied upon.
5. Chargesheet to have sufficient grounds and reasons: While a detailed analysis of the evidence is not necessary, the chargesheet must contain sufficient grounds and reasons to justify the prosecution.
6. Facilitating cognisance: The chargesheet is a crucial document that allows the Magistrate to decide whether to take cognisance, issue process, or dismiss the case under Sections 190(1)(b) and 204 CrPC.
7. Reflect thorough investigation: Although not expected to be a comprehensive narration of the case, the report must reflect a serious and complete investigation.
8. Magisterial discretion not affected: If the Magistrate finds the material insufficient, they may choose not to proceed with cognisance and exercise other available legal options.
9. Investigation procedure reaffirmed: Referring to H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, the Court reiterated that investigation includes visiting the scene, ascertaining facts, making arrests, collecting evidence, and forming an opinion on whether an offence is made out.
10. Strict compliance required: Citing Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, the Court directed that police officers must strictly adhere to Section 173(2) CrPC and the State Police Manual. Failure to comply will be viewed seriously by the courts.

The judgment may be read here.

Related:            

Black Armbands, State Crackdown: UP targets Muslims for peaceful protest against Waqf Act

CJP submits objections to Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024 over serious threats to civil liberties

Uttarakhand HC orders unsealing of Madrassa, SC steps in to hear Jamiat’s petition against Dhami govt’s crackdown against Madrassa

From Prison to Uncertainty: After Battling for Bails, Kashmiri Journalists Battle Stigma, Financial Crisis and Isolation

The post Supreme Court slams UP police for criminalising civil disputes, calls it a ‘complete breakdown of rule of law’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On January 20, 2025, Irfan, a 40-year-old resident of Sambhal, was detained by police following a complaint alleging non-repayment of a loan. Within hours of his detention, Irfan passed away. His family alleged that he was denied access to essential medications despite informing the police of his critical condition. They accused the authorities of custodial torture, a claim denied by the police, who asserted that Irfan suffered a heart attack and cited CCTV footage as evidence.

Eyewitnesses, including Irfan’s son, reported that the police ignored repeated pleas to allow Irfan to take his medication. His wife, Reshma, stated that the family had informed the officers of Irfan’s heart condition, yet their concerns were dismissed. This negligence was highlighted as not just an operational lapse but a systemic disregard for detainee rights and basic humanity. Testimonies from neighbours and community members described Irfan as a law-abiding individual whose arrest and subsequent death were deeply shocking for the local population

Medical reports submitted by the family suggested pre-existing cardiac ailments, further calling into question the police’s decision to ignore his health condition. Legal experts pointed out that procedural safeguards under the BNSS (earlier CrPC) and the guidelines issued by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) were blatantly ignored. No medical evaluation was conducted before taking him into custody, a critical violation of NHRC mandates.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by The Quint (@thequint)

The custodial death unfolded in a state notorious for its high incidence of such cases. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Uttar Pradesh leads in custodial fatalities, pointing to systemic lapses in police accountability and adherence to legal procedures.

Outrage and protests

The news of Irfan’s death spread rapidly, sparking widespread public outrage in Sambhal. Hundreds of locals, activists, and political leaders gathered outside the Raisatti police outpost, demanding justice and accountability for what they termed an egregious instance of custodial torture. The protesters carried banners and chanted slogans, urging an independent investigation into the incident. Allegations of inhumane treatment, including the denial of essential medical care, intensified public anger. Eyewitnesses described how the police abandoned the outpost as tensions escalated, leaving it temporarily unmanned. Law enforcement reinforcements, including personnel from the Rapid Action Force, were eventually deployed to manage the situation and restore order.

Political reactions amplified the significance of the protests. Akhilesh Yadav, president of the Samajwadi Party, denounced the custodial death, calling it a “dark stain on the rule of law” under the BJP-led government. He accused the administration of institutionalizing impunity for police excesses. Similarly, Chandra Shekhar Azad, leader of the Bhim Army, pointed to a disturbing trend of custodial deaths disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. He demanded immediate action against the responsible officers and called for systemic police reforms to address such incidents.

Community leaders emphasized that the protests in Sambhal reflected deeper grievances among minority groups, who view custodial deaths as symbolic of institutional bias. Activists highlighted the disproportionately high number of such incidents in Uttar Pradesh, noting that these acts erode trust in law enforcement, especially in minority-dominated areas. The protests became a rallying cry for justice, drawing attention to broader issues of systemic inequities and police misconduct

Judicial commission’s investigation

In response to widespread public pressure and growing national scrutiny, the Uttar Pradesh government established a judicial commission to investigate the custodial death of Irfan and other recent incidents of violence in Sambhal. Headed by retired High Court judge Devendra Arora, the commission visited the region to conduct a thorough inquiry into the events. The investigation aimed to uncover procedural lapses and examine whether Irfan’s fundamental rights were violated during his detention.

The commission undertook multiple tasks, including recording statements from Irfan’s family, community members, and local law enforcement officers. It also reviewed medical evidence, including post-mortem reports, which suggested discrepancies in the police’s official narrative. Reports highlighted a lack of adherence to mandatory procedures, such as the requirement for medical evaluation upon arrest, which is stipulated under the NHRC guidelines and the CrPC (now BNSS).

In addition to investigating Irfan’s case, the commission also expanded its mandate to review broader issues of police conduct in Sambhal. This included an examination of the November 24, 2024, riots, which erupted during a controversial land survey near the Shahi Jama Masjid. Witnesses testified that police inaction and delayed intervention exacerbated communal tensions, leading to widespread violence and property damage. Many residents alleged that the authorities selectively targeted certain communities during the subsequent crackdown..

Systemic concerns and broader implications

The custodial violence in Sambhal is not an isolated incident but a reflection of systemic issues that plague law enforcement across the country. For instance, the case of Somnath Suryavanshi in Parbhani, Maharashtra, on December 15, 2024, mirrors similar patterns. Suryavanshi, a 35-year-old Dalit activist, was arrested following communal violence triggered by the desecration of a replica of the Constitution. While in judicial custody, he complained of chest pain and died shortly thereafter in a state-run hospital. His family alleged police brutality, claiming he was targeted for his Dalit identity and activism. This led to widespread protests, with political leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, asserting that Suryavanshi’s death was a “cent per cent custodial death.” The protests intensified demands for justice and highlighted recurring instances of misuse of power by law enforcement agencies, especially against marginalized communities. These incidents underline the urgent need for systemic reforms to ensure accountability and prevent custodial violence from becoming a normalized aspect of governance

Legal framework governing custodial deaths and torture

The legal implications of custodial torture and deaths in India highlight critical gaps in both legislative enforcement and systemic accountability. Drawing from constitutional mandates, criminal law provisions, and NHRC guidelines, custodial violence remains a grave violation of human rights and judicial directives. Article 21 of the Constitution enshrines the right to life and personal liberty, encompassing protection against inhumane treatment. This is supplemented by Article 22, which provides procedural safeguards during arrest and detention. Yet, these constitutional guarantees are undermined by systemic abuse.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, replacing the CrPC, introduces critical procedural safeguards to address such violations. Section 196 mandates a magisterial inquiry in cases involving custodial deaths or rapes, emphasizing the role of judicial or metropolitan magistrates over executive magistrates to ensure impartiality. Section 194 empowers district magistrates to conduct inquests, highlighting the increasing responsibility of civil authorities in ensuring transparent investigations. These provisions align with prior guidelines under Section 176(1A) of the CrPC but aim to bridge enforcement gaps by centralizing accountability within the judicial framework.

NHRC guidelines further reinforce this by mandating independent autopsies, immediate reporting of deaths, and time-bound investigations. However, despite these safeguards, the enforcement remains lacklustre. Data reveals that over five custodial deaths occur daily, underscoring the persistent misuse of authority by law enforcement agencies.

Judicial precedents have consistently emphasized the importance of due process in custodial situations. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal 1997 (1) SCC 416, the Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines to prevent custodial torture, mandating arrest memos, family notifications, and access to legal representation. Similarly, in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration 1980 SCC (3) 488, the apex court decried the use of third-degree methods and indiscriminate handcuffing, terming them violative of Articles 21 and 19.

The lack of adherence to these safeguards in cases like Sambhal and Parbhani not only underscores institutional bias but also highlights the urgent need for systemic reforms. It is imperative that police training incorporates a human rights perspective and that civil society acts as a watchdog to bridge enforcement gaps. Furthermore, India’s failure to ratify the UN Convention against Torture reflects a broader reluctance to institutionalize accountability mechanisms at the international level. This reluctance, coupled with the rising trend of custodial violence, demands immediate legislative and administrative intervention to safeguard the dignity and rights of individuals.

Related:

Rising Concerns as Incidents of Custodial Deaths of Dalits and Muslims Continue Unabated

Custodial deaths highest in Gujarat over 5 years; jails overcrowded

A Muslim man in Hyderabad detained on suspicion of theft reportedly subjected to custodial torture for 5 days

The post Sambhal Custodial Death: A systemic failure exposed 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.

The above-named five persons have been booked for promoting enmity between different groups under section 196 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, and making statements conducive to public mischief under section 353 of the BNS. This comes after a social media post had been put out by Zakir Ali Tyagi on July 5, claiming that a man Firoz, or Kala Qureshi, had died in a mob lynching incident in the Jalalabad town of Shamli district. He also named the persons who had allegedly beaten-up Qureshi. Qureshi was a scrap worker with no criminal record, and was beaten to death over allegations of theft in the Jalalabad town of Shamli district. After his family protested, an FIR against three persons – Pankaj, Pinky and Rajendra – was lodged.

In the said social media post. Zakir Ali Tyagi had alleged that deceased Firoz was “killed by members of another community” on the suspicion of breaking into their house. The post had also been accompanied by a picture the deceased as well as the complaint that was filed by Qureshi’s family, who claimed that Qureshi had been beaten up by a group of men that had caused his death. As provided by Qureshi’s family, he had gone to the Aryanagar area for some work where he was beaten up by a group of three men – Pinky, Pankaj and Rajendra, all residents of Ganga Arya Nagar – around 8 pm. It was after reaching Qureshi being rescused by some men and reaching his house that Qureshi took his last breath around 11 pm, as stated by the police. It is essential to note that an FIR over the said incident had been registered under BNS Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) on July 5 based on the complaint filed by the family.

शामली जिले के कस्बा जलालाबाद में मॉब लिंचिंग में फिरोज कुरैशी नामक युवक की मौत, फिरोज किसी कारण जलालाबाद के मोहल्ला गंगा आर्यनगर गया था वहां पिंकी,पंकज राजेन्द्र ने अपने साथियों के साथ मिलकर उसको बेरहमी से पीटा जिसके बाद उसे वहां के निवासियों ने किसी तरह बचाने की कोशिश की पर कुछ… pic.twitter.com/3pxO07dssZ

— Zakir Ali Tyagi (@ZakirAliTyagi) July 5, 2024

Police denies lynching by mob

It is crucial to highlight that even as the BNS has brought in a provision of murder by a mob on ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other ground, the same was not invoked by the Shamli police in this incident. Rather, the Shamli police have maintained that it was not the case of mob lynching.

As per a report of Indian Express, the Shamli police had given out statement providing that “On the night of July 4, Firoz had entered the house of accused Rajendra in an intoxicated state. A scuffle broke out between the two parties. Later Firoz’s family took him home where he died. There was no serious visible injury on Firoz’s body. On the basis of the complaint of (Firoz’s) family members, a case was registered under relevant sections and post-mortem of the body was done.”

The statement further provided that “It was also informed earlier that it is clear from the post-mortem report that the cause of death was not assault. The deceased had entered the accused’s house drunk. Despite this, the incident was deliberately given a communal colour and it was posted on social media as mob lynching with the aim of spreading ill will. Action will be taken in the FIR registered as per the post-mortem report. Appropriate FIR has also been registered against the malicious post. The accusations are irrational and hence refuted.”

As per the IE report, the police informed that the viscera of the deceased are preserved and the report is awaited for the same as the cause of the death is unclear. The inspector in-charge of Thana Bhawan police station has been directed to take strict legal action against those booked for posting “wrong” and “malicious” information, the police said.

Shamli police (Uttar Pradesh) has lodged FIR against five reporters under sections 196 ( promoting enmity) & 353 (public mischief) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (new IPC) for posting on their social media handles about a mob lynching incident. pic.twitter.com/sq7rA61YUY

— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) July 7, 2024

Shooting the messenger?

In a classic case of shooting the messenger, the UP police to filing an against the aforementioned five persons, including two Delhi-based journalists, under sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly promoting enmity on grounds of religion through “malicious” posts on X claiming the killing of Qureshi to be an incident of mob lynching. It is essential to note that no arrests have been made in the case so far.

As per the Scroll, the FIR against the five individuals was registered on a complaint by a sub-inspector, Manendra Kumar, of Thana Bhawan police station in Shamli. As per the report, the FIR stated that “Regarding the incident of deceased Firoz… Zakir Ali, Wasim Akram Tyagi, Asif Rana, Saif Allahabadi and Ahmed Raza Khan posted/reposted from their X account… They wrote that late at night in Jalalabad town of Thana Bhawan police station area, a young man, whose name is said to be Firoz alias Kala Qureshi, was beaten to death by some people of another community on suspicion of breaking into the house. Anyone would kill someone like this and then say that he/she had suspicions.”

Shamli Superintendent of Police Abhishek had also confirmed to Scroll that a FIR had been registered against Zakir Ali Tyagi and the four others as “[Qureshi’s death] was not a case of mob lynching.”

The superintendent of police further stated that “The man was beaten up by a few men when he entered their home. But he died at his [own] home. We have also conducted a post-mortem.”

The FIR also quoted the allegations made by Zakir Ali Tyagi and others in their social media post on ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) about Qureshi, alleging that he had “died in a mob lynching incident”. The complaint included that the post said that Qureshi was “severely beaten by people of some other community on the suspicion that he had entered their house”.

As provided by the Scroll, the FIR report quoted the complainant as contending that the social media posts had sparked “hatred and anger” among individuals of a “particular community”.

The FIR said, “Because of the tweets (posts) by the above persons on their X account, there is an enmity and anger among the people of a particular community… Due to this, there is every possibility of communal harmony and local peace getting disturbed. Please take legal action in this regard.”

It is essential to note that the punishment of committing a crime under Section 196 and Section 353 of the BNS is imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Notably, a post about the incident of “brutal beating” was also shared by Thana Bhawan MLA, Ashraf Ali Khan. The MLA represents Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD), an ally of the ruling National Democratic Alliance at the Centre.

जलालाबाद निवासी नवयुवक फ़िरोज़ की निर्ममतापूर्वक पिटाई के दोरान हुई हत्या गम्भीर अपराध है।पुलिस प्रशासन दोषियों के खिलाफ कानूनी कार्यवाही अमल में लाते हुए उनको सज़ा दिलाने का काम करे।
रब मरहूम के घरवालों को सब्र- ए-जमील अता करे।
दुआये मग़फ़िरत।@shamlipolice @dm_shamli

— Ashraf Ali Khan (@AshrafAliKhan__) July 5, 2024

I am being threatened by slapping FIR against me: Zakir Ali Tyagi

Journalist Zakir Ali told IE that, “Shamli Police has registered an FIR against me for reporting the ‘lynching case’. This is not the first time. Even before this I had been attacked five times because of my reporting. Not only me but other journalists too are surprised (over the police action on his post).”

Responding to the criminal case against him, Zakir Ali Tyagi spoke to Scroll and said deemed the FIR filed against him to be tactics to intimidate him. As per the report, Zakir said “Muslims are being lynched daily since the new government [at the Centre] was formed and I am being threatened by slapping FIR against me.”

Highlighting that the present FIR was not the only FIR filed against him, Zakir Ali alleged that the government was trying to silence journalists and citizens who were talking about crimes against Muslims.

“I was attacked and even jailed for 58 days for being a journalist and raising voices of the voiceless, yet we will neither get threatened nor will we bow down but will continue to write against the oppression,” Zakir Ali Tyagi told Scroll.

He further said he will challenge the FIR in the High Court and Supreme Court.

Below are the previous cases filed against journalist Zakir Ali Tyagi:

1. In the year 2017, Zakir Ali Tyagi had been arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Police for two of his Facebook posts – one of which was a joke about the criminal record of Adityanath, the newly-appointed chief minister of the state at that time. He was booked under the Information Technology Act and spent 42 days in jail.
2. In August 2020, the Uttar Pradesh Police had arrested Zakir Ali Tyagi for alleged cow slaughter, a crime that carries a sentence of 10 years in prison under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. Notably, Zakir Ali Tyagi denied the cow slaughter charge against him.
3. In December 2022, a court issued an externment order against Zakir Ali Tyagi under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, preventing him from going back to his own Meerut district for a period of three months. The prosecution had claimed that Zakir Ali Tyagi is a threat to the peace and order in his community because of his involvement in a case involving the slaughter of cows.

Many on social media have also come out in support of Zakhir Ali Tyagi, and have criticised the misuse of the new criminal laws.

This is why I had opposed the new criminal laws in Lok Sabha. They are meant to be “misused” against those who speak the truth. https://t.co/HRJE5B6Noo

— Asaduddin Owaisi (@asadowaisi) July 7, 2024

Clear violation of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India , what is the point of swearing by the a constitution and then misusing the new criminal laws?@TheLeaflet_in https://t.co/tFkeJKFmBF

— Indira Jaising (@IJaising) July 8, 2024

DIGIPUB News India Foundation has also come out with a statement urging the UP police to rescind the FIR against five people including 2 journalists who posted about the death of a Muslim man in Shamli.

Uttar Pradesh police must rescind the FIR against five people including 2 journalists who posted about the death of a Muslim man in Shamli. pic.twitter.com/JpAXoPhEd3

— DIGIPUB News India Foundation (@DigipubIndia) July 8, 2024

Related:

Farmer leaders, church heads and civil society condemn conviction of Medha Patkar

New Criminal Laws: Future risks for democracy and rights in India

Mob beats to death a young Muslim, hostilities had been rising as locals were not happy with Muslims doing well in cricket

The post FIR filed by UP police against 2 journalists, 3 others for putting out social media posts on an incident of alleged mob lynching of a Muslim appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Both were from Moradabad, and were travelling in a car when the police attempted to pull them over. The situation became volatile when the driver evaded the police according to news reports, leading to the driver losing control, and causing the vehicle to overturn in a field along the roadside. Following this, reports suggest that the two men emerged from the overturned car and allegedly opened fire on the police officers. In response, the police returned fire, which resulted in both men sustaining gunshot wounds. While Sajid is now dead, Babloo is recovering from a bullet injury to his leg and is receiving medical treatment. The police claim to have recovered a car, two country made weapons, cartridges, an electronic weighing machine, and tools used for slaughtering from the scene.

A case has been reportedly filed against the accused under the provisions of IPC Section 307, pertaining to attempted murder, and the Arms Act. The Indian Express has reported that as per authorities, this area has witnessed multiple instances of cow slaughter.

A similar incident was reported by Sabrang India from September, where a young Muslim man hailing from Shahjahanpur in Uttar Pradesh, was shot dead by the police while being transported to a local court. According to the UP Police, they assert that the shooting occurred in self-defence as the suspect allegedly attempted to escape custody and open fire on the police.

Official government data by Uttar Pradesh had revealed earlier this year a total of 10,713 encounters have taken place in the state since 2017. Among these staggering records of custodial deaths, the Meerut Police stands out with the highest count, conducting 3,152 encounters, resulting in the death of 63 criminals and the arrest of 1,708 individuals. Agra Police follows closely behind, having committed 1,844 encounters. Within these encounters, 14 criminals were killed and 4,654 were arrested, about 55 police personnel sustained injuries, as communicated in an official press release from the Uttar Pradesh government.

Furthermore, in 2020, the National Campaign against Torture (NCAT) released its report titled India: Annual Report on Torture 2019 recording the reported instances of custodial torture and violence. The report stipulated that a staggering 1,731 individuals were dead in custody in 2019, which can be summed up to amounting to about five deaths daily. About 1,606 deaths occurred in judicial custody and 125 in police custody. The report further noted with gravity that these figures only barely scratch the surface of the true number and extent pof custodial death and torture in the country.

According to Muslim Mirror, Paritosh Chakma, Director of NCAT noted that out of the 125 deaths in police custody, 60% of the victims were from impoverished and marginalised communities. This group of 60% included 13 victims from Dalit and tribal communities, and 15 from the Muslim minority community. Not only that, there were about 37 fatal victims who were detained for minor offences such as theft, burglary, cheating, illegal liquor selling, and gambling, indicating a correlation with their economic status.

The report noted that Uttar Pradesh was the state with the highest number of police custody deaths, followed by Tamil Nadu and Punjab.

Related:

Police shoot dead a Muslim man in custody

Death behind bars: Justice through the Indian Courts as cases spiral

Hyderabad: Muslim man allegedly subjected to custodial torture on “suspicion of theft” for 5 days, dies in hospital

RSS organises route marches in TN, SC directs state govt to submit guidelines to regulate marches in future

The post Muslim youth shot dead by police for alleged intentions of slaughtering a cow appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the Lanka police station, the survivor recorded her statement before the magistrate on November 8, 2023 under Section 164 of the CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code). In the statement, she told the magistrate that she was not only molested but also raped by the three men.

As per a report of the Times of India, after the magisterial statement of the student, the police introduced the Section 376 (D) of the Indian Penal Code, which penalised the offence of gangrape. Prior to this, the case against the three accused had been registered under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman). The investigation of the case is being pursued by Police Inspector Shivakant Mishra of Lanka police station.

As per the Newsclick report, Banaras Police Commissioner Mutha Ashok Jain has said that it will not be far when the accused will be held and that it is possible for the accused to escape, as the survivor had given her written statement in front of the police and magistrate. This matter will be exposed soon, he further said. Sources said the police have found clues about the criminals and they may be exposed any day, the report stated.

FIR against 18 for disrupting peaceful protest

A day after a scuffle broke out between members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidhyarti Parishad (ABVP), All India Students Association (AISA) and the Bhagat Singh Chatra Morcha (BCM) on November 5, a complaint was registered. As per the report of the Indian Express, a 20-year-old woman, a member of Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), registered a complaint against 17 named persons and one unidentified person, alleging that during the protest, “objectionable” slogans were raised and when confronted, the accused “verbally abused, assaulted and also used criminal force with intent to disrobe woman.”

It has been alleged by the complainant in the complaint that the accused had also made remarks targeting a particular community. Notably, the Varanasi police have registered an FIR and booked 18 persons in connection with the clash.

According to the IE report, the FIR filed states that the complainant, along with three others, including a woman, went to the protest site to seek justice for the victim in the November 2 molestation incident. “We found that some outsiders were part of the protest and they were raising objectionable slogans. When we raised an objection, the accused attacked us,” the complainant told police. She added that following “severe beating” she as well as her friend suffered leg fracture. She also claimed that the accused made “casteist” remarks to one of her friends.

The said FIR had been filed under section 505 -2 (Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.), 147 (rioting), 354-B (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe.), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 ( Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace ), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The police have also invoked the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the accused.

The protest by students continue

On November 8, the students at IIT-BHU boycotted their classes and held their classes on Library Road in front of the Director’s office, protesting the non-arrest of the accused. Later in the evening, thousands of BHU students took out a huge march carrying placards in their hands. The movement ended after a huge struggle.

Later, on the evening of the same day, thousands of students took to the streets and put pressure on the police. The students took out a march of about 3-kilometer, starting from the office of the Director of IIT, and raised slogans against the police. As per the IE report, some students were even seen walking barefoot with the photo of Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya in their hands. The students’ march passed through Hyderabad Gate and Visvesvaraya Square and reached the Director’s office and turned into a dharna. The students said that the protest would continue until the accused were arrested.

Late at night, many top police officers reached the spot among the students protesting outside IIT-BHU. They held several rounds of talks with representatives of the IIT Students Parliament. After receiving concrete assurance of the early arrest of the accused, the agitating students went back to the hostels. The students have, however, given an ultimatum that if the accused are not arrested soon, they would take to the streets and protest again.

Related:

BHU molestation case: No arrests made, students allege a previous incident of molestation by bike-borne men, institute puts in security measures

IIT-BHU: Female student molested, abused and stripped by three bike-borne men inside campus

Dalit academic alleges assault, molestation; FIR names 2 faculty, 2 students: BHU

The post After statement before the magistrate by survivor, police adds gang rape section to the case registered appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A circular issued by Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police, dated August 14, says that an analysis of records showed that crimes increased at night one week before “amavasya” (moonless night or new moon) in the “Krishna Paksha” (dark phase), as well as the week after it.

The order, a copy of which is with NewsClick, categorically states, “On analysing the incidents that happened in all the districts… of the state at the headquarters level, it was found that more incidents happen at night one week before and one week after the new moon date of the Hindu calendar. This analysis should be done every month at the level of senior police officers,” the circular, issued along with a copy of Panchang said.”

The circular said the new moon is set to occur on August 16, September 14 and October 14, and officers should remain alert a week before and after it.

A week before and a week after the date of ‘amavasya’, crime mapping should be done,” the circular said. It added that night patrolling should be carried out more “effectively”. To understand this better, a copy of Hindu ‘Panchang’ calendar is also attached along with this circular, the circular reads further.

“Effective crime prevention is one of the top priorities of the police. Through strong policing, an environment of security has to be established among the common citizens in the state. For this, it is necessary that night patrolling should be done more and more effectively, so that the general public can have a sense of confidence in their security,” it said.

The DGP asked police officers to identify crime hotspots and map criminal incidents during this period to formulate a plan to address these concerns. Kumar also directed the local police to design the route plan for Police Response Vehicles (PRV) in accordance with the crime incident analysis. Furthermore, the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS) and Dial 112 are to be on alert mode as per the circular’s instructions.

Meanwhile, the DGP’s order to curb crime as per Panchang has triggered a debate in the state.

Vibhuti Narain Rai, former Director General of Police, UP, told NewsClick that there was no need to mention the Hindu almanac in the circular.

“It is a fact that crime used to increase a week before Amavasya in the Krishna Paksha and a week after, as every night after a full moon day, the size of the moon keeps decreasing. When I was a police officer from 1978 to 1995, we also increased patrolling, especially in rural areas. The reason was that there was no road and electricity in rural areas and dacoities occurred in such areas. But now I haven’t heard of robberies as villages are connected with tar roads and power is supplied at night. It is foolish to talk about the Hindu Panchang. Maybe it was said to please a section,” he said.

Rai said the “DGP must have some data which prove his claims that crime increased at night one week before new moon as well as the week after it. Our country has progressed both in terms of structural changes (electricity and road).”

Former Indian Police Service (IPS) officer SR Darapuri said, “The police department conducts the crime mapping exercise for identifying areas from where maximum cases of theft, burglary, and robberies are reported. The police put a factor time, date and place while mapping and getting indications. Thereafter, an officer makes a policy to prevent crimes. It is a fact that the dark fortnight falls during amavasya and crime increases in that period but using the word, Panchang, does not make sense.”

Another former IPS officer, Amitabh Thakur, said it was clearly visible that for seven years since the advent of the current BJP government in UP, every worthy officer fears losing out in case the Chief Minister gets annoyed with him/her. This sounds like we are still living in some medieval era where superstition and mythologies rule the roost. In short, a section of officers is acting to please their political master and propelling his political agenda, completely intermixed with religious overtones.”

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post UP: DGP’s Circular Asks Officers to Use Hindu ‘Panchang’, Cites Rise in Crime During ‘Amavasya’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On May 9, as the minor girl was on her way to meet her father who was working in the farm, the accused, in their 20s, kidnapped her. The following day when the father filed a complaint, the SHO allegedly forced a compromise between the survivor and the accused, in the absence of the girl’s parents and the matter was then closed. After the case was closed, the girl’s father hanged himself from a tree and his body was found on May 17. Finally, an FIR was registered after this incident. Shukla (who was not suspended then) told TOI that the accused were Rahul, Dinesh and Rohit and they were booked under section 363 (kidnapping), 376 (rape), 342 (wrongful confinement), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 306 (abetment to suicide) as well some sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

It has been alleged by the girl’s brother that she was abducted and taken to Kichha in Uttarakhand by the accused where she was raped by one of the accused and she was threatened of dire consequences if she told the cops.

A report was filed by SP, Pilibhit, Atul Sharma against Shukla and hence he was suspended. Further a detailed inquiry has been instituted against Shukla led by Circle Officer, Dr Prateek Dahiya.

Shukla even delayed the medical examination of the survivor who was finally sent for examination on May 20. Dr Anita Chaurasia told the publication that 11 days after the incident they can only identify healed scars of injury (if any).

Related:

“Highly appalling to see SIT ignoring rank caste discrimination Darshan faced despite overwhelming evidence”: Ramesh Solanki

Hate Watch Agra: “Upper caste” Hindus assault Dalit groom for riding a mare

Dalit History Month: A compilation of must read books about Dalit oppression, marginalisation and their resistance

The post UP: SHO suspended after delay in investigation of minor Dalit girl’s rape appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The tweet can be accessed here:

A 19-year-old polytechnic student “Danish” was allegedly beaten by cops in Police Custody after an argument when he failed to provide DL during Vehicle Checking in Pratapgarhi, UP. He has been admitted to hospital, currently in critical condition.

https://t.co/brLBNUJniF

— Ahmed Khabeer احمد خبیر (@AhmedKhabeer_) May 11, 2023

According to Danish’s family members, on May 10, cops had stopped him on Ayodhya-Prayagraj Highway for not showing his driving license while he was returning home from Chhitpalgarh market on his motorcycle. It was alleged that merely for not having his driving license on him, the police abused and beat him, and even gone to the extent of giving him electric shocks, before taking him to the police station.

A formal complaint has been filed by Danish’s brother against the two unknown police officers and Inspector Ram Anuj Yadav under sections 323 (punishment for causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with the intent to provoke breach of peace), and 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) of the Indian Penal Code at the Delhupur police station, according to the information provided by Maktoob media, based on the FIR copy accessed.

Danish is currently undergoing treatment at a hospital in Prayagraj. To the said tweet by Ahmed Khabeer, the Pratapgarh Police had replied and said that an investigation into the incident has been launched by the police. The departmental procedure is underway for further action, said police. A case has been registered against the accused policemen at the Delhi police station for legal action, it said in a tweet.

The tweet can be accessed here:

प्रकरण को संज्ञान में लेकर उक्त पुलिसकर्मी के विरुद्ध थाना देल्हूपुर में अभियोग पंजीकृत कर विधिक कार्यवाही की जा रही है। विभागीय कार्यवाही हेतु प्रक्रिया प्रचलित है।

— PRATAPGARH POLICE (@pratapgarhpol) May 11, 2023

Related:

Videos of hundreds of women donning an orange dupatta and marching with sticks, swords in a military-style parade surface

Hate Watch Agra: “Upper caste” Hindus assault Dalit groom for riding a mare

Allahabad HC calls out misuse of law in cow slaughter case as only cow dung recovered from scene

Cow vigilantism casts its ugly shadow on Maharashtra

The post UP: Muslim student, 19 left critically injured, police officers under investigation for alleged custodial torture appeared first on SabrangIndia.