The Allahabad High Court has refused to terminate criminal proceedings against Noor Ahmed Ajahri, who faces charges over a viral video in which he allegedly accused BJP-governed states of intimidating Muslims and undermining the Constitution.
Justice Saurabh Srivastava ruled that, at this preliminary stage, the allegations outlined in the complaint could not be brushed aside. The Court noted that the claims in the FIR suggested the statements may have stirred communal sentiment and risked disturbing public order, making it inappropriate to quash the case before trial.
The Court observed that the complaint accused the applicant of spreading religious fervour capable of creating hostility and potentially provoking unrest. Such allegations, it held, were sufficient to justify continuation of proceedings for now.
The matter originates from an FIR lodged in 2023 at Puranpur police station in Pilibhit. The case followed circulation of a video in which Ajahri commented on the killings of Atiq Ahmed and his brother Ashraf. In the footage, he allegedly suggested that administrations in BJP-ruled states were attempting to intimidate Muslims and hinted that the killings were part of a conspiracy during the tenure of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. He also reportedly claimed that the Constitution had been “trampled.”
Police treated the statements as potentially inflammatory and registered offences related to promoting enmity and outraging religious feelings. Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed invoking provisions dealing with statements that foster hostility between communities.
Ajahri argued that he was merely expressing opinions in a public discussion, without any intention to incite hatred. He also questioned the fairness of the investigation and contended that the magistrate issued summons without properly examining the material on record.
The State countered that these arguments involved disputed facts best assessed during trial. The High Court agreed, reiterating that at the stage of summoning, the magistrate only needs to determine whether there is sufficient ground to proceed, not whether the evidence guarantees conviction.
Finding no merit in the challenge, the Court dismissed the plea, while clarifying that its observations are tentative and will not influence the trial court’s evaluation of evidence.
