SUPREME COURT SEEKS EXPLANATION FROM UP POLICE OVER OMISSION OF HATE CRIME CHARGES IN NOIDA ATTACK CASE:

The Supreme Court on Monday examined a plea filed by a Noida-based Muslim cleric alleging that Uttar Pradesh police failed to invoke appropriate hate crime provisions while registering an FIR relating to an alleged attack on him in 2021. The Court questioned the State on why provisions such as Sections 153B and 295A of the Indian Penal Code were not included in the FIR despite allegations indicating religious targeting.

A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing the petition filed by Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, who claimed that he was assaulted by a group of persons on account of his religious identity. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court seeking a fair investigation and action against police officials who allegedly declined to properly register his complaint.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the attack was not an isolated incident but reflected a broader pattern of reluctance on the part of authorities to acknowledge and prosecute hate crimes. He contended that although the Court had directed the production of the case diary, and an FIR was eventually registered, it was confined to offences relating to bodily harm and theft, without invoking provisions specifically dealing with hate crimes.

Ahmadi argued that the allegations in the complaint attracted Sections 153B and 295A of the IPC, which deal with imputations prejudicial to national integration and deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings. He maintained that the continued refusal to include these provisions undermined the seriousness of the offence and impeded a meaningful investigation.

During the hearing, the Bench noted that the Court had recently reserved judgment in a batch of petitions concerning hate speech and hate crimes nationwide, but had kept the present case pending for separate consideration. Justice Sandeep Mehta initially expressed doubt as to whether the alleged offences were prima facie made out and suggested that the trial court could ultimately examine the issue.

As the petitioner’s counsel referred to provisions such as Section 298 of the IPC, dealing with acts intended to wound religious feelings, the Bench raised questions regarding the applicability of such sections and the procedural requirement of prior government sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observed that without such sanction, cognizance of these offences could not be taken, but also noted that registration of an FIR and investigation were prerequisites to even seeking sanction.

The Bench then sought an explanation from Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, on why the FIR did not include the relevant hate crime provisions. The ASG submitted that the omission was attributable to the investigating officer and informed the Court that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the officer concerned.

The Court, however, expressed dissatisfaction with this explanation and pointed out that disciplinary action did not resolve the core issue of failure to register an FIR under appropriate provisions. It emphasised that unless the case was registered under the relevant sections and investigated accordingly, the question of seeking sanction or prosecuting the offences would not arise.

In response to specific queries from the Bench, the ASG conceded that the FIR ought to have included the relevant provisions. The Court indicated that the State must take corrective steps rather than leaving the matter to be addressed through separate proceedings before a magistrate. The Bench drew attention to the allegations on record and observed that the nature of the incident warranted proper consideration under the applicable penal provisions.

The ASG was granted one week’s time to obtain instructions from the State on the steps to be taken. Before the hearing concluded, the petitioner’s counsel reiterated concerns about the recurrence of similar incidents across the country. However, the Bench clarified that it was confining its consideration to the individual case before it and was not inclined to make broader findings in the absence of empirical material. The matter was accordingly adjourned for further consideration.