The Supreme Court of India has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to add “hate crime”‑style charges in the 2021 case of assault and abuse against a Muslim cleric in Noida, and has granted the state two weeks to complete the exercise. The court is monitoring the proceedings after repeatedly questioning why initial charges did not include sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) specifically dealing with communal or religion‑based offences, despite the petitioner’s claim that the violence was targeted on account of his Muslim identity and religious appearance.
The case stems from an incident on 4 July 2021, when Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, described in court records as a Muslim cleric and resident of Noida, alleged that he was assaulted, abused and humiliated by a group of men who reportedly targeted him because of his beard and his ostensible Muslim identity. The original FIR registered by the Noida Police did not invoke hate‑crime‑linked provisions such as IPC Section 153‑B (“assertions prejudicial to national integration”), 295‑A (“acts intended to outrage religious feelings”) and 298 (“uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings”). The Supreme Court, hearing a writ petition challenging this omission, held that the nature of the abuse—including forcible pulling of the complainant’s beard, a religiously significant act—suggested a clear targeting of religious identity.
Following the court’s critical observations, the Uttar Pradesh government has informed the Supreme Court that it will invoke the appropriate hate‑crime‑related provisions and has agreed to a two‑week window within which the prosecution and investigating agencies are to complete the formal amendment of charges and investigation records. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, has also reminded the state that even though certain of these offences require government sanction for prosecution, that does not absolve the police of the duty to register and investigate properly framed FIRs from the outset. The case remains pending before the Supreme Court, with the court keeping a close watch on how the hate‑crime framework is applied in the matter.