The Uttar Pradesh government has informed the Supreme Court of India that it will invoke hate crime provisions in the 2021 assault case of Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, nearly five years after he alleged being abused and humiliated over his Muslim identity in Noida.
Appearing for the state, Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj told a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta that Sections 153B (imputations prejudicial to national integration) and 295A (deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code would now apply. He said the state would move the trial court within a week to add the provisions.
The submission followed a two-week directive from the Supreme Court asking the state to clarify whether hate crime provisions would be applied to the July 4, 2021, incident, in which Sherwani, a Delhi resident travelling to Aligarh, alleged he was offered a lift by a group of men in Noida, then verbally abused and had his beard forcibly pulled.
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for Sherwani along with advocate Shahrukh Alam, said the issue of compensation for the victim remained unresolved. The bench noted the state’s agreement on the applicable provisions but said the petitioner could still pursue compensation before the appropriate forum.
Sherwani had approached the Supreme Court in November 2021, alleging police inaction after his complaint was forwarded from Delhi to Noida authorities, who initially refused to register a case. He also sought a victim compensation framework for hate crime survivors and action against officials for failing to register his complaint.
The court noted that while sanction for prosecution under Sections 153B and 295A requires government approval under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the state cannot refuse to register a case or investigate.
In January 2023, Uttar Pradesh police had filed an FIR only under provisions related to criminal intimidation and causing hurt, stating that the accused intended to loot Sherwani. The state also informed the court that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against officers who had failed to act earlier.
The bench clarified that it would not generalise the incident as communal in the absence of broader evidence, but had earlier observed that forcibly pulling a Muslim man’s beard—a practice integral to his faith—indicated a religious dimension to the assault.
The matter remains pending before the Supreme Court, with the state expected to take further procedural steps in the coming week.