Supreme Court Asks UP Police To Produce Records Of Case Relating To Alleged Hate Crime Against Man

The hearing which almost ran into two hours was before a Division Bench Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna.

The following were the broad category cases - the petitions filed against the 'UPSC Jihad' campaign by Sudarshan News TV, the petitions filed against the 'Corona jihad' campaign in the wake of the Tablighi Jamaat issue, the petitions filed against Dharam Sansad meetings where anti-Muslim statements were allegedly made, and petitions seeking broad guidelines to curb hate speech.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi informed the Bench about a case registered on the complaint of a man from Uttar Pradesh that he was attacked and abused on account of his religion.

"The gentleman was a Muslim, he had a beard and a cap. On July 4th(2021), he was on his way from Noida. Some people uttered several things about his religion, beat him up, and stole his money. He then went to the police station to narrate these facts. He had to run from post to pillar. Upon investigation, they say - it's not a hate crime but theft", Huzefa said.

Continuing, he asked, "what's the message that you (state) are sending to the victim of this crime? I ask myself. Why should this man want to file a false complaint?".

Additional Advocate General and Senior Advocate Garima Prashad, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh said, "This itself is a media-driven allegation and case"! She added that upon investigation, it was found that there were no religious slurs or no manhandling involved.

The Bench then asked a couple of questions to the AAG.

"How did the police come to the conclusion that this was a case of theft? Were there witnesses? Do you have the case diary?"

"We have verified everything. We have filed a very detailed counter affidavit. The entire investigation was carried out by the Delhi Police. Unnecessarily, he has given four statements, all of which are contradictory. First, it was Rs. 150, then it was Rs. 500, and then it was Rs. 1,200."

"My learned friend said that there's a contradiction in the amount stolen. How does that have any bearing on the nature of the crime?", Ahmadi asked.

Further, he pointed out that State is always hesitant to record such crimes while adding that the state should be more sensitive when citizens' rights are involved.

"There's hesitancy on the part of the State government to register these crimes. They want to bring down the number of these crimes so that the criminal record shows that there are no hate crimes."

"Bring all the records on the next day", the Court then told the AAG.

Advising caution, the Bench warned that the people from the community would be the "innocent victims" if cases involving hate speech are not taken seriously.

"If you (State government)are not careful enough, people from the community would be innocent victims of these crimes (hate speech crimes). The seriousness of the matter should be kept in mind."

State counsel told the Bench that before filing, the matter was reported by the media.

"Why should this elderly man from UP come to Delhi and file a false case?", Huzefa asked while adding that it's the state's responsibility to ensure that the rights of citizens are not compromised.

He also pointed out that there's a "pattern" when people try to file like-cases. They are discouraged, especially if they belong to certain communities. "Attitude of the state is that the victim is a liar!", he said.

The Bench then said that it would detag this matter from the rest of similar cases. "That's a test case", the Court, adding that both sides can't be true.

"Both sides can't be true, we would like to know where the truth lies"

The Court then asked the State government to be present with the case diary for the next hearing, in two weeks.

"The state shall be ready with the case diary", the Court ordered.

 KAZEEM AHMAD SHERWANI vs STATE OF UP W.P.(Crl.) No. 391/2021