Noida Hate Crime Case: Supreme Court Questions Police Refusal to Register FIR, Seeks Centre’s Response

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta examined the plea seeking a fair and impartial investigation into the incident and action against police officials who allegedly failed to act on the petitioner’s complaint.

While the court has recently reserved orders in a batch of petitions concerning hate speech, it chose to keep the present case pending, observing that it raised distinct issues.

Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj submitted that the matter had lost its significance as a trial was already underway. “Now the trial is going on, nothing may survive in this matter,” he argued.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the petitioner, strongly disputed this position. He submitted that the principal grievance was the continued refusal of the police to register offences relating to hate crimes. Referring to the incident dated July 4, 2021, Ahmadi stated that the State’s initial response was outright denial. He pointed out that it was only after the Supreme Court called for the case diary in January 2023 that an FIR was registered, and even then, offences relating to hate crimes were excluded.

“The FIR was not for hate crime. They said it was an offence against the human body,” Ahmadi told the bench, arguing that the refusal to invoke appropriate provisions reflected a deeper pattern of institutional reluctance.

When Justice Sandeep Mehta asked which provisions ought to have been invoked, Ahmadi referred to Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC. Justice Mehta, however, remarked that it was for the trial court to apply its mind to the offences made out.

Ahmadi countered by stating that the court needed to look beyond the individual case. “I am trying to show a pattern of reluctance to take cognisance of the fact that this kind of thing is happening,” he submitted, describing the issue as systemic rather than isolated.

Justice Vikram Nath observed that the broader questions surrounding hate speech were already under consideration, with orders reserved in the related batch of cases. Justice Mehta, meanwhile, referred to Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, noting that prosecution for certain offences could not proceed without sanction.

Ahmadi responded that there was no question of sanction at this stage and emphasised that repeated failures to register FIRs for hate crime offences undermined accountability. He also argued that Sections 153B and 295A IPC were attracted in the present case and warned that such incidents had serious implications for national integrity.

The Bench, however, cautioned against generalisation. “We are not giving it that colour. There is one incident before us, no empirical evidence,” Justice Mehta said, resisting the attempt to expand the scope of the hearing.

During the exchange, Justice Mehta questioned the Centre on the police response after notice was issued, remarking that merely initiating an enquiry was insufficient. “Unless you register a case, investigate, seek sanction, how will prosecution proceed?” he asked. The ASG conceded that an FIR ought to have been registered, but suggested that the magistrate could issue appropriate directions.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Bench noted that it had substantially heard the matter and granted the ASG one week’s time to seek instructions and place a response before the court.

Case Title: Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Hearing Date: February 3, 2026