The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed serious concern over the failure of the Uttar Pradesh Police to promptly register a First Information Report (FIR) in connection with an alleged hate crime incident in Noida, raising questions about systemic police inaction and compliance with settled criminal law principles governing mandatory registration of cognisable offences.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made these observations on a writ petition filed by a 62-year-old Muslim cleric, Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, alleging that he was subjected to a targeted communal assault in July 2021 and that the local police deliberately refused to register offences, reflecting the hate-driven nature of the incident, despite repeated representations.
The petitioner sought a court-monitored, fair, and impartial investigation, as well as accountability of police officials for the alleged dereliction of statutory duty under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
At the outset, the Apex Court noted that while it had recently reserved orders in a batch of petitions concerning hate speech and related issues, the present case raised distinct concerns pertaining to police refusal to register appropriate offences and the consequent dilution of criminal accountability at the threshold stage.
Appearing for the Union of India, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj submitted that the matter had lost relevance as criminal proceedings were already underway. However, the Bench was not persuaded by this submission, particularly in light of the petitioner’s contention that the FIR was registered belatedly and failed to invoke provisions dealing with hate crimes.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the petitioner, contended that the main part of the challenge lay not merely in the incident itself but in the persistent institutional reluctance to acknowledge and prosecute hate-motivated offences.
He pointed out that despite the alleged incident having occurred on July 4, 2021, the police initially denied to register a complaint altogether. It was only after the Supreme Court sought the case diary in January 2023 that an FIR came to be registered. Even then, offences capturing the communal and hate-based character of the assault were omitted.
Senior Advocate Ahmadi further argued that the facts disclosed the commission of offences under Sections 153A, 153B, and 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalise acts promoting enmity between groups, imputations prejudicial to national integration, and deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
He pointed out that the failure to invoke these provisions reflected a deeper pattern of non-enforcement rather than a bona fide exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
The Bench observed that the ultimate determination of applicable offences ordinarily fell within the domain of the trial court. However, the petitioner countered that the issue before the Supreme Court transcended individual culpability and concerned structural barriers to the registration of hate crime offences, thereby undermining the rule of law and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under Article 14.
During the hearing, the Bench adverted to Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates prior sanction for prosecution in respect of certain offences relating to hate speech and communal disharmony. The petitioner clarified that the issue at hand was anterior to sanction, emphasising that the failure to even register cognisable offences rendered subsequent procedural safeguards illusory.
The Court also reminded the authorities that the law laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 mandated compulsory registration of an FIR where information disclosed the commission of a cognisable offence, leaving no discretion to the police to conduct preliminary enquiries except in narrowly defined circumstances.
Expressing dissatisfaction with the police response, the Bench questioned the efficacy of merely initiating an enquiry without formally registering a case, noting that investigation, sanction, and prosecution could not meaningfully proceed in the absence of an FIR. The ASG fairly conceded that an FIR ought to have been registered, while suggesting that remedial directions could also be issued by the jurisdictional magistrate.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Bench recorded that it had substantially heard the matter and granted the Union one week’s time to seek instructions and place a detailed response on record.
The case pertained to an alleged incident in July 2021, wherein the petitioner claimed that he was forcibly pulled into a vehicle by a group of men, physically assaulted, subjected to communal abuse, and humiliated in public.
The Court had earlier expressed dissatisfaction over the apparent laxity displayed by the State police machinery in responding to the complaint, particularly given the gravity of the allegations and their implications for communal harmony and constitutional values.
The post Supreme Court berates UP police over failure to register FIR in Noida hate crime case appeared first on India Legal.