Supreme Court of India questioned Uttar Pradesh police over inadequate affidavit in Noida hate crime case. Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta flagged omission of Section 153B IPC.
The Supreme Court asked why the Uttar Pradesh government’s investigating machinery seems to be playing “hide and seek” with it, while noting its dissatisfaction with the compliance affidavit submitted by police in a 2021 Noida case involving allegations of a hate crime.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta questioned Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, about why the police had not included Section 153-B of the Indian Penal Code in the case. The observation came while examining a compliance affidavit filed by the state authorities, which the Court found inadequate and unconvincing.
Factual Backgrounds:
The case originates from a complaint filed by a senior citizen who alleged that he was subjected to a brutal hate crime incident in Noida on July 4, 2021. According to the petitioner, he was “abused, tortured and systematically stripped of his dignity” by a group of individuals. Seeking a fair and impartial investigation, the petitioner approached the apex court, contending that the police had failed to invoke appropriate penal provisions despite the serious nature of the allegations.
Additionally, the plea also sought action against certain police officials in Gautam Buddh Nagar for allegedly neglecting preventive and remedial measures laid down by the Supreme Court in earlier rulings concerning hate crimes.
Proceedings Before the Court:
A key issue before the Court has been the failure of the police to invoke Section 153-B and Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code in the First Information Report (FIR). Section 153-B deals with imputations prejudicial to national integration, while Section 295-A criminalises deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious sentiments.
The Court noted that, on a previous hearing dated February 16, the law officer representing the state had himself acknowledged that the allegations in the complaint satisfied the ingredients of these offences and that the FIR ought to have included them.
Despite this, the petitioner’s counsel pointed out that “Section 153-B has been dropped again,” raising serious concerns about the consistency and integrity of the investigation.
Reacting to this, the Bench questioned the state, asked,
“Why your IO is playing hide and seek with this court?”
The Court was particularly troubled by the repeated omission of relevant provisions despite its earlier observations and directions, indicating a lack of diligence on the part of the investigating authorities.
ALSO READ: Not Legislating Or Monitoring Every Small Incident: Supreme Court On Hate Speech
Appearing for the state, Additional Solicitor General K. M. Nataraj informed the Court that the trial court had already granted permission for further investigation and assured the Bench that the necessary sections, including Section 153-B, would be added.
However, the Court remained unconvinced, stating,
“We are not satisfied with the compliance affidavit filed by the respondent.”
The Bench even indicated that it was considering summoning the investigating officer personally, reflecting the seriousness with which it viewed the lapses.
The Court, however, granted the state a final opportunity to rectify the situation after the law officer sought time. It allowed two weeks for complete compliance and warned the authorities of consequences in case of further lapses.
Emphasising accountability, the Bench remarked,
“Please advise your officers otherwise they will be in trouble. We have no fun in calling them and giving them a dressing down.”
The matter has now been scheduled for further hearing on May 19.
This case highlights ongoing concerns about the proper invocation of penal provisions in hate crime investigations and the role of law enforcement in ensuring that serious allegations are addressed with due sensitivity and legal rigor. It also highlights the Supreme Court’s continued insistence on accountability and adherence to its directives, particularly in cases involving fundamental rights and communal harmony.
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE