Tablighi Jamaat verdict shows how easily fear can be weaponised to target marginalised groups

Indian Express

5 days ago

In the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, when fear and uncertainty gripped the nation, the Tablighi Jamaat congregation in Delhi had become a lightning rod for blame, stigma, and sensationalism. The Delhi High Court's recent verdict (in Mohd Anwar and Ors vs State NCT of Delhi), quashing FIRs against 70 Indian nationals accused of sheltering attendees, exposes a troubling truth — while the virus spread silently, another contagion raged unchecked: The epidemic of misinformation and prejudice.
In a detailed judgment running into 51 pages, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna discharged the Indian nationals and others who were accused of 'sheltering attendees of Tablighi Jamaat' in their homes during Covid-19. The Court held, 'In these peculiar circumstances, the question of human rights arose whereby their movement was curtailed on account of the pandemic and they were compelled to remain in the Markaz, where they had already congregated since prior to the Declaration of Lockdown. The congregation had not been subsequent to the Notification under Section 144 CrPC. They were helpless people, who got confined on account of lockdown.'
The High Court also said, 'The continuation of these Chargesheets would tantamount be abuse of the process and also is not in the interest of Justice, in terms of the principles enunciated in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra).'
The court's sharp observation — that there was no evidence that the accused spread Covid or violated prohibitory orders — raises uncomfortable questions. Were these individuals unfairly vilified in a media trial that outpaced facts? Did the rush to assign blame overshadow the real failures in pandemic management? This judgment of the Delhi High Court, is not just a legal vindication but a mirror to be held up to society, reflecting how easily fear can distort justice.
In the FIRs, the accused were held for violating Section 144 of the CrPC and flouting disaster management laws. However, the Delhi High Court ruling dismantled these claims, noting that the accused were already present at the Markaz before the lockdown and they hadn't congregated afterward, nor was there proof they knew of the prohibitory orders.
This was not the first time that criminal proceedings have been quashed against Tablighi Jamaat members. Even in December 2020 (State vs Mohd Jamal), the Saket district court in Delhi had acquitted 36 foreign nationals who were held by the police. While acquitting all of them, the court said that they had been picked up from different places so as to maliciously prosecute them.
Earlier when the Supreme Court was hearing a batch of petitions regarding fake news about Jamaat members, then Chief Justice C V Ramana flagged an observation, saying that the problem is everything in this country is shown with a communal angle by a section of the media. The country is going to get a bad name ultimately,' adding 'I don`t know why everything is given a communal angle,' he observed.
The Tablighi Jamaat episode will be remembered not just for its legal outcome, but for what it revealed about India's pandemic-era psyche. When the judiciary had to step in to correct a narrative hijacked by hysteria, it exposed the perils of justice delayed and democracy distorted — by unchecked prejudice. The real 'super-spreader' wasn't a religious gathering, but institutional overreach and the toxic blend of misinformation. The judgment serves as a cautionary tale that in times of crisis, the line between vigilance and vilification is perilously thin.
While all the accused have been discharged, the prejudice which has been amplified through biased news reporting and unverified broadcasts will stay with them forever. The episode, it seems, was never about public health violations, but more about how a community was scapegoated, humiliated and portrayed as the reason for 'spreading' Covid-19. A public health crisis was made into a communal witch hunt.
Beyond the courtroom, this episode exposes a deeper malaise: How easily fear can be weaponised to target marginalised groups. The stigma attached to the Jamaat's name lingers, even after its exoneration by the judiciary. Reputational damage, after all, is far harder to undo than legal charges. If we have to learn anything from this whole episode of malicious prosecution, it is that public health emergencies demand unity, not division.
The writer is an advocate practising at the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow