The Supreme Court questioned the Noida police for refusing to register a proper FIR in a hate crime complaint by a Muslim cleric and said mere enquiry was not enough. The Centre has been given one week to place its response on record.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a petition filed by a 62-year-old Muslim cleric, Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, who has alleged that he was a victim of a hate crime in Noida and that the local police deliberately failed to register the correct criminal offences despite several complaints made by him.
The petition was listed before a Bench of Supreme Court of India comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Forms SIT to Probe Corruption Allegations in NOIDA Land Compensation Case
Sherwani has approached the apex court seeking a fair and impartial investigation into the incident and also action against police officers who allegedly refused to perform their legal duty by not registering offences related to hate crimes under the Indian Penal Code.
Although the Supreme Court has recently reserved its judgment in a batch of petitions dealing with hate speech, the Bench decided to keep the present matter pending, noting that it raised separate and specific concerns.
Appearing on behalf of the Union government, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj submitted that the petition no longer had much relevance since a criminal trial was already underway in the matter.
“Now the trial is going on, nothing may survive in this matter,”
he told the court.
This submission was strongly opposed by senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, who appeared for the petitioner. Ahmadi argued that the core issue was not merely the pendency of a trial, but the continued and deliberate refusal of the police to register offences relating to hate crimes.
Referring to the incident which took place on July 4, 2021, Ahmadi stated that the initial response of the State authorities was one of complete denial.
He further pointed out that it was only after the Supreme Court called for the case diary in January 2023 that an FIR was finally registered. Even then, according to Ahmadi, the police avoided invoking provisions dealing with hate crimes.
Ahmadi told the Bench,
“The FIR was not for hate crime. They said it was an offence against the human body,”
He submitted that this refusal to apply appropriate sections of law showed a deeper institutional unwillingness to acknowledge hate-based violence. When Justice Sandeep Mehta asked which specific provisions should have been invoked, Ahmadi referred to Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Mehta responded by stating that it was ultimately for the trial court to assess the facts and decide which offences were made out. Ahmadi, however, urged the Supreme Court to look beyond the facts of one individual case.
“I am trying to show a pattern of reluctance to take cognisance of the fact that this kind of thing is happening,”
he submitted, arguing that the problem was systemic in nature.
ALSO READ: Legacy Waste|| CJI Stays NGT’s Rs 1,000 Crore Penalty on Punjab
Justice Vikram Nath observed during the hearing that broader questions related to hate speech were already being examined by the court and that orders had been reserved in those matters. Justice Mehta, on his part, referred to Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pointing out that prosecution for certain offences cannot proceed without prior sanction.
In response, Ahmadi stated that the issue of sanction did not arise at the present stage. He emphasised that repeated failure by police authorities to even register FIRs for hate crime offences seriously weakened accountability within the criminal justice system.
He further argued that Sections 153B and 295A of the IPC were also applicable in the present case and cautioned that such incidents had serious consequences for national unity and integrity.
The Bench, however, warned against drawing broad conclusions based on a single incident.
“We are not giving it that colour. There is one incident before us, no empirical evidence,”
Justice Mehta remarked, making it clear that the court was not inclined to expand the scope of the hearing at this stage.
During the exchange, Justice Mehta also questioned the Union government about the police response after notice was issued by the court. He observed that merely ordering an enquiry was not sufficient.
He asked.
“Unless you register a case, investigate, seek sanction, how will prosecution proceed?”
The Additional Solicitor General accepted that an FIR should have been registered earlier but suggested that the concerned magistrate could issue appropriate directions in the matter. At the end of the hearing, the Bench noted that it had substantially heard the case and granted the ASG one week’s time to seek instructions and place a detailed response before the court.
Case Title:
Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Noida
