Latest news with #JamiatUlama-i-Hind
Hindustan Times
10 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
7/11 blasts acquittals: Defence team, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind's dogged pursuit of justice
Mumbai: In September 2015, five of the 13 men tried for their alleged roles in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts were handed a death sentence. On Monday, after 10 years on death row, the Bombay high court not only spared them the gallows but declared them free men. Seven others who were sentenced to life imprisonment similarly stood acquitted of all charges. While one accused died in jail in 2021, 11 of them are set to walk out of different prisons in the state in a matter of days. 7/11 blasts acquittals: Defence team, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind's dogged pursuit of justice It's been a dogged pursuit of justice not only for the accused but a team of defence lawyers that built a case for acquittal that convinced the Bombay high court. Two former high court judges and successful defence lawyers came on board with the help of the Maharashtra branch of the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, a prominent organisation of Islamic scholars. Their collective skill, strategies and legal acumen led to the acquittal of the 12 accused, who were incarcerated for 19 years since their arrest in 2006. Lawyer Ansar Tamboli said that counsel Yug Chaudhry was central to the defence team. With former high court judges S Murlidhar and S Nagamuthu coming on board, the team was fortified. Lawyers Chaudhry and Payoshi Roy represented all the accused in the case and made common arguments for them during the morning and afternoon sessions of the hearings, respectively. Senior counsels Nagamuthu and Murlidhar, and senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan argued for two accused each and made their submissions before the court for two days each. Tamboli said that the Jamiat footed the litigation expenses. Before the defence team came on board, about five counsels had turned the case down on account of its volume or citing paucity of time, he added. 'We have been working on the case right from the time of the conviction in 2015. The counsels who appeared in the matter agreed to do so because they were convinced that the accused were falsely implicated. We showed them that the matter was full of loopholes and how the evidence fell short,' said Tamboli. He also said that the case was far more 'bulky' than an average criminal case and required a lot of preparation. 'On average, a criminal case has about 50 witnesses. But in this matter, there were 179 witnesses. There were 52 defence witnesses and two court witnesses. There were 169 volumes of documents, with each volume made of 400-500 pages,' he explained. The legal cell of the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind was shocked when only one of the 13 accused was acquitted by the lower court in 2015. 'But our lawyers assured us that we should appeal, that there was nothing in this case,' said a relieved Maulana Halimullah Qasmi, president of the Maharashtra Jamiat. Desperate for legal representation, but unable to afford it, families of some of the accused had approached the Jamiat for help in 2006. 'We saw their financial condition—some of them had two families living in 10x15-feet rooms,' said Qasmi. The late advocate Shahid Azmi, known for representing clients he believed were falsely implicated, was also handling some of the 7/11 accused. Among his many clients was Gulzar Azmi, then secretary of the Maharashtra Jamiat. Two of Azmi's sons had been picked up under the draconian Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) in another case; Shahid managed to get them acquitted. The young lawyer convinced the older man of the need for a legal aid cell to help Muslims. That was how the Jamiat's Legal Aid Cell was born. It has, till now, achieved 192 acquittals across the country. The Jamiat only takes up cases of those it believes are innocent, said Qasmi. 'Our legal team goes through the case papers. If we suspect that the accused is involved, we don't touch the case,' he said. 'Because, for us, the country comes first. Our maulanas have sacrificed so much in the freedom movement; we cannot support anyone trying to harm our country.' Known for its fiercely anti-British stand (hundreds of scholars were hanged during the 1857 war of independence; later, many were charged with sedition and executed or sentenced to life), the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind was formally launched in 1919. It supported Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress and opposed Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Partition. Post-independence, it emerged as the most influential organisation of Muslim clergy. For the defence of the 7/11 accused, the Jamiat hired a galaxy of well-known names: Wahab Khan, Yug Chaudhry, Sharif Shaikh, Nitya Ramakrishnan from Delhi, and former judges S Murlidhar (former chief justice of the Orissa high court) and S Nagamuthu (Madras high court). 'Most lawyers charge us much less than they would otherwise,' said Qasmi. 'They know we are doing this as a service.' The funds come from donations that the Jamiat receives, mostly as zakat (charity mandated on all Muslims). 'Because these are zakat funds, we have to use them very carefully,' said advocate Shahid Nadeem, who's been part of the Jamiat's legal team for 10 years. 'So, before taking up a case, we also collect information, through local units of our organisation, about the accused's own record. Also, we only help those who approach us and who are needy.' No lawyer has yet refused a case, and most of the high-profile lawyers who've appeared for the Jamiat have been Hindus, said Qasmi. Have they ever been criticised for the work they do? 'If someone questions us, we point out that arrest doesn't make anyone a terrorist. That needs to be proved in court,' he said. In the Nagpur session of the Maharashtra assembly in December 2014, BJP MLA Ashish Shelar had accused the Jamiat of promoting terrorism, asked for a ban on it, and made allegations against Gulzar Azmi. 'We had met chief minister Devendra Fadnavis and had those remarks expunged,' said advocate Nadeem. Despite the nature of the cases they take up, they face no pressure, revealed Qasmi. 'Everyone knows us as the organisation that opposed Partition. We believe that all those who live in this country are part of one qaum (community); religion does not define nationhood.' The only man acquitted by the lower court in the case, Abdul Wahid Shaikh, has spent the last 10 years spreading awareness about the innocence of his fellow accused. He became part of the Jamiat's legal team, and also worked with the Innocence Network, a coalition of organisations that provide legal aid for those they believe have been wrongly accused. Today was a vindication of Abdul's crusade, but the acquittal isn't enough, said lawyer Sharif Shaikh. 'There must be a public apology from the state and compensation for those who lost 19 years of their life,' he added. 'We believed in the innocence of the accused, and our hopes were realised,' said Qasmi. 'But the question remains: who carried out those blasts? The families of those who died need an answer that the investigating agencies must provide.'
Time of India
7 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind team visits eviction site, sets up shelters
Guwahati: A delegation from Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (Maulana Mahmood Asad Madani faction) visited Goalpara district in lower Assam on Tuesday to assess the aftermath of a recent eviction drive and helped set up temporary shelters for those evicted. The recent eviction drives at Hahilabil (also known as Hasilabil) and Ashudubi in Goalpara's Paikan led to the demolition of approximately 4,000 houses, primarily affecting Bengali-origin migrant Muslim families. The delegation comprised five members, led by the organisation's general secretary, Maulana Hakim Uddin Qasimi. The ASJU provided assistance by establishing temporary shelters, while local organisations and residents offered essential humanitarian support, including food provisions. The delegation engaged with affected families and evaluated the conditions at the demolition. "Whatever has happened in Goalpara was painful. People of our own country are being evicted. Govt first needs to arrange shelter for them, then other decisions may be taken," Hakim Uddin said, noting the deprivation of basic necessities and advised the displaced residents to remain patient. The organisation submitted a memorandum to CM Himanta Biswa Sarma through the district magistrate. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Kassel: GEERS sucht 700 Testhörer für Hörgeräte ohne Zuzahlung GEERS Undo The document criticised the demolition as discriminatory, highlighting its focus on Muslim-majority areas, while sparing similar settlements of other communities. The memorandum emphasised that many affected families resided in these areas for over seven decades and possessed legitimate Indian citizenship. Many were previously displaced by the Brahmaputra's erosion. A preliminary report by Maulana Badruddin Ajmal and Hafiz Bashir Ahmad Qasmi detailed that demolitions from Nov 2023 to July 2025 affected 8,115 families across Goalpara, Dhubri, and Nalbari districts.
India Today
10-07-2025
- Entertainment
- India Today
High Court pauses release of Udaipur Files until government reviews ban plea
The Delhi High Court on Thursday stayed the release of the controversial film Udaipur Files, which was scheduled to hit theatres on July 11, pending a decision by the Central Government on pleas seeking its permanent ban.A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal directed the petitioner, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, to approach the Central Government within two days under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, which empowers the Centre to revise CBFC's certification decisions. The court ordered that the release of the film shall remain stayed until the Centre decides on any application for interim provide that till the application for interim relief, if made by the petitioner along with the revision petition, is decided by the government, the release of the film shall remain stayed," the court held. The government has been directed to consider and decide the matter within a week, after giving the producer an opportunity to be heard. The court noted that the petitioner had not previously availed the statutory remedy available under Section 6. "The petitioner ought to have approached the Central Government under Section 6," the bench observed, stating that under this provision, the government is empowered not only to pass final orders but also to impose interim measures such as suspension of a film's court also cited the 1991 CBFC Guidelines, stating that films must be judged in their entirety and that the CBFC must not allow any content that promotes communal disharmony. It acknowledged the CBFC's legal obligations under the Cinematograph Act and emphasised that Section 5C does not grant appeal rights to the public against a film's certification, while Sections 5E and 5F vest the Centre with powers to suspend, withdraw, or review a court clarified that even though it has extraordinary jurisdiction, it would not interfere at this stage since the statute provides a clear alternative the proceedings, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners including Maulana Arshad Madani, president of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and principal of Darul Uloom Deoband, urged the bench to view the film and described it as "vicious," "full of violence and hatred," and "cinematic vandalism.""This is not right for the country. It's not art - it's malicious propaganda. Please don't let it reach the public," Sibal submitted. He added that the film's trailer, released on June 26, contained inflammatory content that had the potential to rekindle the communal tensions seen in 2022. He also referenced the filmmaker's prior record, which he claimed included acts of hateful incitement, and noted that the trailer included scenes the CBFC had ordered to be High Court had previously ordered the producers to screen the film for the petitioners on July 9. Sibal cited scenes from the film's beginning - such as a Muslim man throwing meat at a Hindu household and the arrest of Muslim students - questioning their relevance to the core story. He argued the film attempted to malign an entire community and link unrelated communal events, including the Delhi Udaipur Files is reportedly based on the 2022 murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor in Udaipur, who was killed by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous. The attackers released a video claiming the act was in retaliation for the tailor's social media post in support of former BJP leader Nupur case is currently under trial before the Special NIA Court in Jaipur and involves charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma stated that the film focuses on crime and not any specific clarified that references to Deoband, Nupur Sharma, and Gyanvapi were removed from the final cut and said, "The CBFC is mindful of ensuring that no community is targeted." Sharma added, "The story is about how communal seeds are being sown from across the border, and it includes calls for communal unity."The producer's lawyer maintained that 55 cuts had been made to address communal concerns and insisted that the film did not portray Muslims in a negative lawyer also referenced the NIA chargesheet in the Kanhaiya Lal case, arguing that the film's content reflects facts already in the public domain. However, the court stated that "you cannot justify the story of the film on the basis of any information collected during the investigation". advertisementThe film was initially set to release in 1,800 theatres nationwide, with about 100,000 tickets reportedly booked in court underlined that the government retains both revisional and interim powers under the Cinematograph Act to address such matters.- EndsMust Watch
Indian Express
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Hindutva activist with a long list of cases is the man behind ‘Udaipur Files' movie on Kanhaiya Lal killing
Last week, Udaipur Police arrested two people for allegedly issuing a call to boycott a movie on the 2022 beheading of Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal Teli. This week, Maulana Arshad Madani, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind president and principal of Darul Uloom Deoband, said he had filed petitions in the Delhi, Maharashtra, and Gujarat High Courts seeking a stay on the July 11 release of the Udaipur Files; the Supreme Court on Wednesday, however, refused to stay its release. Amid calls for a boycott and promotions online, as the Udaipur Files hurtles towards a controversy, the man behind the Vijay Raaz-starrer is its producer Amit Jani, who is known to plant himself at the centre of contentious issues. Jani first hit the headlines in July 2012, when he led three other members of his outfit to vandalise the statue of former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati at Lucknow's Ambedkar Park with a hammer. Jani had demanded in a press conference hours earlier that the Samajwadi Party (SP)-led state government remove Mayawati's statues, following up on the party's electoral promise. Else, he threatened, his Uttar Pradesh Navnirman Sena, modelled after the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena and founded around 2010, would do the needful. The outfit took inspiration from the regional identity politics of the MNS. A native of Meerut in UP, the 44-year-old was also booked in February 2012 for showing black flags to then Rashtriya Lok Dal president Ajit Singh and Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi. In May 2016, he was arrested for allegedly threatening then JNU Students' Union president Kanhaiya Kumar and Umar Khalid. He was accused of planting a loaded gun and a letter threatening to behead the two JNU students in a bus. In April 2017, in the backdrop of some students allegedly supporting the Pakistani cricket team, he allegedly put up hoardings on the Delhi-Dehradun highway asking Kashmiris to 'leave the state or face consequences'. He was subsequently arrested. That July, he was booked in another case for allegedly calling for SP leader Azam Khan's tongue to be cut off for his controversial remarks about security personnel. In October 2017, the UP Police arrested him for sharing a modified image of the Taj Mahal with saffron flags on the dome and its minarets, on social media, and also giving a call for a gathering of saffron and Hindu organisations at the Taj Mahal. In December 2018, following the BJP's loss in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh Assembly polls, his outfit was booked for allegedly putting up 'Yogi versus Modi' hoardings in Lucknow, highlighting 'Jumlebaazi' vs Yogi's 'Hindutva brand.' In February 2019, following the Pulwama terror attack, he put up a sign, 'Kashmiris not allowed', at his Noida hotel. However, the poster was removed by the time police reached, and OYO, the hospitality chain of leased and franchised hotels, said it had delisted the hotel. Ironically, while Jani has made a movie on the Udaipur murder, he had announced a 2019 Lok Sabha ticket for Shambhulal Regar, who, in December 2017, hacked migrant labourer Mohammad Afrazul Khan in a similar manner in Rajsamand and then burnt the body. Like the Udaipur case, Regar too recorded a video of the incident that went viral. In 2017, Jani floated the Shivpal Yadav Youth Brigade, named after SP president Akhilesh Yadav's uncle. Shivpal, who eventually floated the Pragatisheel Samajwadi Party (Lohia) following differences with Akhilesh, made Jani the president of his party's youth wing in November 2019. More recently, Jani also launched a 'Hindu Action Force'. In his affidavit for the 2022 Uttar Pradesh elections, Jani listed 14 pending cases against him in Meerut, Delhi, Amroha, Lucknow, Agra, and Rampur. These included cases for vandalising a Shiv Sena office in Meerut in 2010, the vandalism of the Mayawati statue, dowry harassment, looting, and threatening a doctor. As the release of the Udaipur Files draws closer, Jani has claimed he is receiving death threats on social media for the movie, which also has music by singer Kailash Kher. 'The film's trailer includes the controversial statement by Nupur Sharma, which not only worsened the communal atmosphere across the country but also tarnished the country's image at the international level and negatively impacted our friendly relations with other countries,' said Arshad Madani. On June 28, 2022, two persons — Mohammad Riyaz and Ghouse Mohammad — posed as customers and hacked to death Kanhaiya Lal Teli at his shop in Udaipur over a post shared by him on social media in support of Sharma, a BJP spokesperson who was suspended for her objectionable remarks about the Prophet during a live television debate. On Monday, SP MLA Abu Asim Azmi said in the Maharashtra Assembly that releasing the movie may lead to a law-and-order situation and demanded a prohibition on it. He also moved a Private Member's Bill against those spreading division, insult or violence in the name of religion. Earlier, the Congress and the BJP had traded barbs over the issue in Rajasthan, with former CM Ashok Gehlot attacking the government, saying that 'even after three years of trial, the culprits have not been punished in a case of such a clear nature'. Meanwhile, as the Teli family awaits justice, they have backed the movie and also accompanied Jani to press conferences, temple visits, and meetings with religious leaders and politicians.
The Hindu
08-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Jamiat chief moves Delhi HC to seek stay on release of film on Kanhaiya Lal murder case
A petition has been filed before the Delhi High Court seeking to stay the release of 'Udaipur Files', claiming that the movie based on tailor Kanhaiya Lal murder case has potential to inflame communal tensions and disrupt public order in the country. The petition has been filed by Maulana Arshad Madani, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind president and principal of Darul Uloom Deoband, and is likely to come up for hearing on Wednesday. Madani has claimed in the petition that a trailer of the movie, released on June 26, 2025 was replete with dialogues and instances that had led to communal disharmony in 2022, and carries every potential to again stoke the same communal sentiments. "The movie, in fact unabashedly depicts court scenes, the statement made by a sitting chief minister supporting one party in the case and also explicitly mentions the controversial statement made by a politician - Nupur Sharma - which had resulted in communal violence and, in turn, the gruesome murder of Kanhaiya Lal," the petition claimed. It said that a mere viewing of the trailer as released leaves no manner of doubt as to the plot of the movie as the trailer itself seeks to portray an entire community in a prejudicial manner, thereby violating the right to live with dignity for the members of the community. "The trailer itself is sufficient to demonstrate its highly provocative nature, capable of creating a wedge between the communities which may cause serious disturbance to public peace and public order across the country, which had demonstrably happened with the same set of statements that are now being repeated in the movie," it said. The petitioner said that while the murder of Kanhaiya Lal was carried out by two fanatics, the trailer seeks to falsely portray the same as being carried out with the complicity of the religious heads/leaders of the community. "The release of the film Udaipur Files has the potential to inflame communal tensions and disrupt public order," the petition claimed. The film's release may result in "vilifying an entire religious community, foster hatred and severely undermine the fabric of religious harmony in the country which amounts to a direct contravention of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as it promotes discrimination, and threatens the right to life with dignity and security for an entire community", it alleged. The petition also claimed that the film violates the constitutional morality by weaponising the freedom of expression to weaken the constitutional vision of a plural, inclusive, and secular India, and instead attempts to mainstream narratives that deepen social and religious divisions. "Artistic expression, no matter how evocative, cannot be permitted to become a vehicle to crush fraternity and uproot the ethical foundations of the nation as enshrined in the Constitution," it said.
