NEW DELHI There is no room for hate crimes based on religion in a secular country, the Supreme Court observed on Monday while stating that such crimes should not be ignored and “whitewashed” but rather be stopped with an iron hand.
The observations came in the backdrop of the Uttar Pradesh police refusing to acknowledge the assault of a 62-year-old Muslim man Kazeem Ahmed Sherwani in Noida July 2021 as a hate crime. After the court called for the case record in January, the state lodged the first information report (FIR) on January 15 after a delay of nearly 20 months.
Expressing “distress” over the “huge monumental delay” in registering the case, the bench of justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna observed that “when such crimes are not acted against, a climate of hate is fostered”.
“There is no room for hate crimes on the basis of religion in a secular country,” the bench said, referring to the facts of the case where the aged petitioner’s beard was pulled by a group of men who later abused him for wearing his cap showing his religion after letting him inside a car on the pretext of offering a ride.
“Once you stop it with an iron hand, a message goes out… If it is a hate crime there is no point ignoring it. Rather than whitewashing it as something else, it has to be rooted out from our lives,” the bench added.
The Uttar Pradesh government argued that the men involved in the crime operated as a gang and targeted persons with an intention to loot by offering them a ride. The state denied any “religious slur” angle and accused the petitioner of sensationalising the matter in the media. A day after the incident, the visibly shaken victim went to his house in Delhi and registered a complaint with the Delhi police on July 5, 2021.
“Citizens need protection of state which has a duty to protect the individuals,” the bench said, as it directed the Uttar Pradesh police to produce the complaints of a similar crime lodged against the same accused in June 2021. It even sought an affidavit on the result of the investigation carried out by March 3, the next date of hearing.
Raising doubts over the state’s claim to deny the incident as a hate crime, the bench said, “A Muslim man has beard as an integral part of his religious practice. This has come out in the statement made by him to the Delhi police. By verbally abusing and pulling the beard, intimation of it being a hate crime is very clear,” the judges observed.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj appearing for the UP government submitted that upon review of the incident by the Director General of Police, the complaint of the victim disclosed a cognizable offence as he was assaulted by the accused. “There was a lapse on our part and we have taken remedial action,” the ASG said referring to the latest FIR of January 15. He said departmental action was initiated against the policemen who failed to initially register the complaint.
“When a person knocks at your door, you have to register the FIR and set the ball rolling. Will you refuse to acknowledge there is hate crime and sweep it under the carpet,” the bench lashed out at the state. On the 20-month wait to register the case, the court remarked, “Your officers are guilty of breaching our decision in Lalitha Kumari case requiring mandatory registration of FIR. Why this huge monumental delay?”
On perusal of the FIR, the court found that it contained generic provisions of intimidation and causing hurt while crimes intended to outrage religious feelings were absent. “What about other crimes of religious hue… Where are the offences under Sections 153A or 295 (dealing with hate crimes based on religion). If you are not invoking them, how will it be there in the charge sheet? We are not adversarial but only expressing our anguish.”
Take it seriously, the bench told the state while adding, “We hope you will follow up the (departmental) probe to its logical conclusion. Set an example. None of the policemen should get away for dereliction of duty. Only then can you come at par with the developed countries with which you wish to partner.”
The petitioner was represented by senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi who said that the present case was a classic example of what a victim has to go through. “What sort of investigation can I expect when they say it is not a hate crime,” Ahmadi said, adding that the state should be held accountable for failing to protect citizens and in following the mandate provided by the rule of law. The bench agreed to consider this aspect on the next date.
Sherwani approached the top court in November 2021 seeking a victim compensation scheme for persons affected by hate crimes. He also demanded action against the police personnel who refused to register his case.