The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the probe by Uttar Pradesh Police into an alleged hate crime against a Muslim cleric in Noida after noting that key penal provisions had not been added to the First Information Report (FIR) [Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.].
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta pulled up the State during the hearing and questioned the conduct of the investigating officer for not adding hate crime related provisions despite earlier orders.
“They were clear observations, Mr. Nataraj. Why is your IO playing hide and seek with the Court? Can you back out from 153B?” the Bench asked.
Section 153B penalises imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration.
The proceedings arose from a 2021 complaint filed by a 62-year-old Muslim cleric, Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, who alleged that he was targeted on account of his religious identity.
According to his plea, he was waiting to board a bus in Noida when a group of individuals offered him a ride. During the journey, he was abused with religious slurs, called derogatory names referring to his Muslim identity, had his beard pulled and skull cap removed, and was later thrown out of the vehicle.
He approached the Supreme Court seeking a fair investigation, contending that the Uttar Pradesh Police initially failed to invoke provisions relating to religious hate crimes despite the nature of the allegations made by him in the complaint.
Earlier this year, the State accepted before the Court that offences under Sections 153B (imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 295A (hurting religious sentiments) of the Indian Penal Code were, in fact, attracted by the allegations made in Sherwani's complaint but not added to the FIR.
Noting that the Investigating Officer (IO) had committed a "grave error", the Court had granted time to the State to seek permission from the trial court to conduct further investigation, add the relevant provisions to the FIR and file a compliance report to that effect.
When the matter was taken up today, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, informed the Court that permission to conduct further investigation into the case was already sought.
However, the counsel appearing for Sherwani informed the Court that Section 153B had still not been added to the FIR.
Taking note of this, the Court took serious exception to the conduct of the Investigating Officer (IO) in the case.
"Call this ACP who has given this report, let him come and explain why he is doing all this," the Court said.
At this stage, ASG Nataraj requested the Court not to summon the IO and assured compliance by the next date of hearing.
The Court heeded to this request, however, it did not stop short of recording its dissatisfaction.
“We are not satisfied with the compliance affidavit filed by the respondents in compliance with the order dated February 16, 2026. We were inclined to summon the investigating officer; however, on the request of Mr. Nataraj, we grant two weeks further time to ensure full compliance,” the Court ordered.
The matter will be heard next on May 19.
[Read Live Coverage]