The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL seeking a probe into FIRs filed in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand over ‘I Love Muhammad’ posters, advising petitioners to approach the appropriate state forums for legal remedies.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking a “free and fair” investigation into the cases filed in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand over the “I Love Muhammad” posters displayed during Milad-un-Nabi processions.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as the FIRs were registered outside its territorial limits.
“We have our own doubts about whether it would be possible for this Court sitting in Delhi to issue such directions as sought by the petitioner,” the Bench stated, dismissing the plea as “highly misconceived.”
The Court further clarified that individuals named in the FIRs could approach the appropriate forums in the respective states to seek relief through remedies available under law.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Shujaat Ali, representing Raza Academy and serving as the National President of the Muslim Students Organisation of India (MSO). He alleged that police authorities in Uttar Pradesh’s Kanpur and Bahraich, as well as Uttarakhand’s Udham Singh Nagar, had registered false and communal FIRs against individuals who merely displayed “I Love Muhammad” posters during Milad-un-Nabi, an Islamic festival marking the birth and passing of Prophet Muhammad.
Ali argued that the accused were wrongfully implicated in cases involving charges of rioting, criminal intimidation, and breach of peace without any “cogent or independent evidence.”
ALSO READ: Akola Riots | Supreme Court Stays Order Mandating Hindu–Muslim Officers in SIT
Petitioner’s Argument
Invoking Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, and 25 of the Indian Constitution, the petitioner contended that the actions of the state police violated fundamental rights, including the right to equality, freedom of expression, personal liberty, and freedom of religion.
He urged the Court to direct an independent investigation and to quash what he described as politically motivated FIRs intended to criminalize peaceful religious expression.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court, however, reiterated that judicial jurisdiction is limited by geography and that Delhi courts cannot intervene in criminal proceedings initiated in other states. The Bench emphasized that the accused have sufficient legal recourse available within the jurisdiction where the cases have been filed.
The PIL was accordingly dismissed, with the Court declining to issue any directions regarding the ongoing investigations in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.
