‘Communal’ Remarks Targeting BJP Govts: Allahabad High Court Refuses Relief to Muslim Personal Law Board Leader

The Allahabad High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against State President of the Muslim Personal Law Board Noor Ahmed Ajahri, who is accused of stating in a viral video that BJP-ruled States are attempting to intimidate Muslims and have “trampled” the Constitution into the ground, holding that a prima facie case under Section 505(2) of the IPC (corresponding to Section 353 of the BNS) was made out.

Ajahri had challenged the chargesheet dated May 29, 2023, the cognizance order dated July 24, 2024, and the entire proceedings in a case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit. The case originates from an FIR registered at Puranpur police station in Pilibhit district.

According to the prosecution, the FIR was lodged after the police received a video in which Ajahri allegedly made statements regarding the killing of Atiq Ahmed and his brother Ashraf. In the video, he is alleged to have said that the killings were the result of a conspiracy by the Uttar Pradesh government and further claimed that the ruling party does not have faith in the Constitution and has undermined it.

Based on the video, an FIR was initially registered under Sections 153-A and 295-A of the IPC (corresponding to Sections 196 and 299 of the BNS), alleging that the statements were capable of inciting communal sentiments and creating hostility among communities. Following investigation, the police submitted a chargesheet under Section 505(2) IPC, which deals with statements that promote enmity or ill-will between different groups. The magistrate subsequently took cognizance and summoned the applicant.

Appearing for the applicant, counsel argued that the statements were made during television debates in his official capacity and did not attract the ingredients of the alleged offence. It was contended that no statement made by the applicant could be said to fall within the scope of Section 505(2) IPC. The plea also alleged that the investigation was not fair and that the magistrate had taken cognizance without due application of mind.

Opposing the plea, the State submitted that the issues raised by the applicant involve disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence at trial. It argued that at the stage of cognizance, the court is only required to see whether a prima facie case exists and not to conduct a detailed evaluation of the material on record.

The high court, after hearing both sides, observed that the central issue was whether the allegations in the FIR fall within the ambit of Section 505(2) IPC. It noted that the provision penalises statements made with the intent to create or promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups.

On a prima facie reading of the FIR, court found that the allegations indicate that the applicant’s statements could incite communal sentiments and create hostility among the public. Court observed that the accusations include spreading religious excitement and provoking disturbances, which could impact public order.

Court reiterated that at the stage of taking cognizance, the magistrate is only required to determine whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether the material is sufficient for conviction. Relying on decisions of the Supreme Court in S.W. Palanitkar v State of Bihar and Nupur Talwar v CBI, court emphasised that the exercise at this stage is limited and does not involve a detailed examination of evidence.

Holding that it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out, court declined to interfere in the proceedings. The plea was accordingly dismissed, with the court clarifying that its observations are prima facie in nature and shall not affect the trial, which will proceed on the basis of evidence led by the parties.

Case Title: Noor Ahmad Ajahri vs. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: March 16, 2026

Bench: Justice Saurabh Srivastava