The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against the chief of the Muslim Personal Law Board in Uttar Pradesh for allegedly claiming in 2023 that Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled states were attempting to intimidate Muslims.
Taking note of the police’s allegations that Noor Ahmed Ajahri’s remarks could incite communal hostility, Justice Saurabh Srivastava held on March 16 that the case could not be quashed at this stage.
The case is based on a video allegedly received by the police in which Ajahri could be heard purportedly speaking about the killing of gangster-turned-politician Atiq Ahmed and his brother Ashraf Ahmed in April 2023.
On April 15, 2023, Atiq Ahmed and Ashraf Ahmed were shot dead in the presence of police officers as they were being taken for a medical check-up to a hospital in Prayagraj.
The brothers were in custody in connection with the murder of lawyer Umesh Pal, who was a witness in the 2005 Raju Pal murder case. Umesh Pal was shot dead in Prayagraj on February 24. Days later, the Uttar Pradesh Police booked Ahmed, his wife Sahista Parveen, two of their sons and Ashraf, among others, for Umesh Pal’s murder.
In the video, Ajahri could be heard purportedly alleging that despite a court sentencing Atiq Ahmed and Ashraf Ahmed to life imprisonment, they were killed “as a result of a conspiracy” by the Adityanath-led Uttar Pradesh government.
Ajahri had also allegedly stated that the BJP has “trampled the Constitution into the ground”.
A first information report was registered against him in 2023 at the Puranpur police station in Pilibhit.
The police had initially invoked Indian Penal Code sections pertaining to promoting enmity between religious groups, as well as committing acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
A chargesheet was filed in May 2023 under a section pertaining to making statements that promote enmity, hatred, or ill-will between communities (505(2) of IPC).
Ajahri challenged this before the High Court, stating that he had only expressed his views during a public discussion. He said that he had not spoken any words that would come under the ambit of section 505(2).
He also alleged that the investigation was not conducted fairly and claimed that the magistrate summoned him to face trial without properly examining the material placed before the court.
The High Court rejected the plea, stating that it could not be concluded that no prima facie case was made out.
Just 0.2% of readers pay for news. The others don’t care if it dies. You can help make a difference. Support independent journalism – join Scroll now.
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!