Latest news with #TablighiJamaat
The Hindu
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Why were Tablighi Jamaat members given a clean chit?
The story so far: The Delhi High Court last week acquitted all 70 Tablighi Jamaat members accused of housing foreign participants of a congregation during the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 in violation of lockdown protocol. The court ruling came in the Mohammed Anwar versus State of NCT of Delhi case. What happened in March 2020? The Tablighi Jamaat members, who came in for heavy criticism in media and political circles for attending a jod (religious congregation) in Nizamuddin Markaz (Jamaat's headquarters in New Delhi), were given a clean chit by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna who noted that the said jod was planned before COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). Incidentally, the jod which began on March 12, 2020 concluded on March 15, a day before the Delhi government capped all religious gatherings above the size of 50 and imposed the Delhi Epidemic Diseases, COVID Regulations-2020. Earlier, on March 13, 2020, the Union Health Ministry had stated that the coronavirus was not a national health emergency as there were only 81 cases in India at that time. It all changed after the imposition of the lockdown on March 24 at midnight. While most Indian participants had dispersed by then, foreign nationals were still at the Jamaat headquarters, awaiting resumption of international flights to their respective destinations. The congregation included participants from Indonesia, Malaysia, Kuwait, Ghana and Sri Lanka. However, soon after the imposition of the nationwide lockdown, the Delhi Police had filed FIRs against hundreds of Indian and foreign participants of the Tablighi Jamaat congregation for allegedly violating the lockdown and orders prohibiting the assembly of people. The men were booked under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Epidemic Diseases Act, the Disaster Management Act and the Foreigners Act. These FIRS accused Indian nationals of either hosting foreigners in mosques or accommodating them at their homes. They were challenged before the High Court which dismissed them last week, a little over five years after the incident. What did the court state? 'There is nothing on record to show that they had congregated after the promulgation of the Notification under Section 144 Criminal Penal Code. These petitioners were already present in the Markaz. After the imposition of the lockdown, there was no way possible for them to have dispersed; rather their stepping out of the houses would have been a violation of the complete lockdown and also of the potential of spreading of communicable disease of COVID-19,' the court stated. The court also noted that the imposition of Section 144 banning large gatherings was not announced through a gazette notification nor was it properly published. Hence, the Tablighi Jamaat preachers were possibly unaware of such a notification. 'There is no averment to show that any information was actually conveyed to the petitioners,' the court stated. It also observed there was no whisper in the chargesheets that the accused were COVID-positive or had defied the government order by stepping out during the pandemic. Incidentally, eight foreign participants had been acquitted back in August 2020 by the south-east districts court in Saket, New Delhi. Later in December, 36 more foreign participants were acquitted. What was the media's role? A large section of the media had then accused the Tablighi Jamaat volunteers of being the principal reason for the spread of the disease in the country. Terms like Corona Jehad, Islamic Insurrection and Corona Terrorism were loosely bandied about and many fake videos were shared accusing the Tablighi members of spitting on food to spread the disease. The Delhi government, in its daily medical dispatches, used to have a separate column for Tablighi Jamaat COVID cases.
Indian Express
7 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Tablighi Jamaat verdict shows how easily fear can be weaponised to target marginalised groups
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
Indian Express
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Tablighi Jamaat Covid case: Living in markaz did not amount to violating government orders, says Delhi HC
Merely living in a markaz did not amount to a violation of government-issued prohibitory orders curtailing movement during the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, the Delhi High Court has ruled while quashing 16 FIRs and consequent chargesheets against 70 Indians associated with the Tablighi Jamaat. The Jamaat, an international Islamic religious group, was accused of spreading Covid by organising an international congregation in Delhi, at the Nizamuddin Markaz, between March 13 and 15. Ruling that no offence is 'even prima facie made out in the chargesheets', the HC, in its July 17 order made public on Friday, has observed that the 'continuation of these chargesheets would tantamount be abuse of the process and also is not in the interest of justice'. Noting that the accused were rendered 'helpless' with the announcement of a sudden lockdown, the court also observed that they had congregated before the issuance of prohibitory orders, and had not violated any of the conditions thereafter. The court recorded that 'merely because they were living in a Markaz, it did not amount to a violation' of the conditions of prohibitory orders. Tearing into the Delhi Police's and the prosecution's allegations, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna recorded, 'In the present case… there is not a whisper in the FIRs or the chargesheets that petitioners (accused) were found COVID-19 positive or they had moved out negligently or unlawfully with intent or knowledge to spread the disease of COVID-19, which was dangerous to human life.' 'There is not a whisper in the entire chargesheet that any of these petitioners… had stepped out of the Markaz after 24.03.2020 or that they were likely to spread COVID-19. Also, there is not a single averment of them not having rendered any assistance to the surveillance personnel,' the court further observed. The accused were charged under IPC sections 188 (disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant), 269, 270 (negligent, malignant act to spread infection of disease dangerous to life), 120B (criminal conspiracy), along with Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, and Sections 51 and 58 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The FIRs were registered at the Chandni Mahal, Sarai Rohilla and Krishna Nagar police stations between March 31 and April 2, 2020. It had accused them of allegedly accommodating foreign nationals in mosques and their homes during the pandemic from March 24-30, 2020. While seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, the defence had asserted that 'the allegations have been manufactured only to bring them within the four corners of criminal offence, even though they are patently false and unsubstantiated'. It was pointed out that the congregation was scheduled well before the pandemic. Thereafter, they were left 'remediless' with imposition of prohibitory orders under CrPC Section 144, a janta curfew banning movement of people on March 22, 2020, followed by a 21-day lockdown from March 25, 2020 — leaving them with no recourse but to continue staying inside the masjid, until taken into institutional quarantine. The court also took into consideration that 'all cases that were registered during the COVID-19 period' under similar provisions before various courts across the country 'have ended either in acquittal or discharge of the accused persons'. The Delhi Police's Crime Branch initially registered an FIR under Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897, various IPC sections, along with provisions of the Disaster Management Act 2005, against seven Indians. The Crime Branch then filed 48 chargesheets and 11 supplementary chargesheets, including under Section 14(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, against 955 foreign nationals, of whom 908 entered plea bargains before the magistrate court. Eight of them were discharged in August 2020, and 36 others acquitted in December 2020. No action was taken against three others who were identified as foreign national juveniles. The government began a crackdown on Tablighi members after an Indonesian man who had allegedly attended the gathering in Nizamuddin was detected with Covid in Telangana. Over 950 foreign nationals, including diplomats, were subsequently blacklisted and accused of contravening emergency rules. In September 2021, the then Chief Justice of India N V Ramana, while hearing a batch of petitions against news channels for their presentation of news on the Tablighi meeting, had orally remarked: '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.' 'Ingredients for the offences not made out' While granting relief to the accused, the Delhi HC, in its order, dissected how the ingredients for the offences were not made out. Here's what it said: -IPC Section 188 Noting that 'it cannot be overlooked that with the imposition of the lockdown, w.e.f. 25.03.2020, the entire world came to standstill and no person was permitted to step out of the house,' and the nationwide lockdown also meant that the distribution of newspapers, handbills, etc. was also prevented, the court held that it cannot be said that prohibitory orders were duly 'promulgated'. 'There is no averment whatsoever to show that any information was actually conveyed to the petitioners (regarding the prohibitory orders)… The essential ingredient of promulgation to constitute an offence under Section 188 IPC has, therefore, not even been established. Even if, entire prosecution case is admitted, no offence is made out under Section 188 IPC,' Justice Krishna held. 'The congregation had not been (held) subsequent to the notification under Section 144 CrPC. They were helpless people, confined on account of the lockdown… It is also significant to note that merely because they were living in a Markaz, it did not amount to a violation of any of the five activities which were prescribed by the notification under Section 144 CrPC… None of the activities prohibited under Section 144 CrPC had been undertaken by any of the petitioners after the date of its promulgation,' the court held. -IPC Section 269, 270 Quashing these charges, the court observed that the prosecution produced no material on record to prove that the accused had indulged in any act which was likely to spread Covid. 'No material was produced in the chargesheet and no evidence was placed on record to substantiate the fulfilment of ingredients of Sections 269 and 270 IPC… Even if all the evidence as put forth in the chargesheet is admitted, no offence under Sections 269 and 270 IPC has even prima facie been made out…,' the court held. -Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 The court recorded, '… there is no averment of any government official being obstructed or there being any refusal to comply with any directions issued by the government. No offence under Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, has therefore, been made out… There is no averment about which order taken out under the Disaster Management Act has been violated. It is not shown that there was any criminal act, whether under the Disaster Management Act or the Epidemic Diseases Act, committed by the petitioners. The FIRs under these two sections are also liable to be quashed.'
Indian Express
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Tablighi Jamaat Covid case: Here's what happened five years ago
More than five years after the Tablighi Jamaat was accused of spreading Covid by organising an international congregation in Delhi, the Delhi High Court Thursday quashed charges in 16 FIRs and chargesheets filed in related cases involving 70 Indian citizens. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna told the open court that the proceedings stand quashed. Arguing for quashing of the FIRs, the accused, represented by advocate Ashima Mandla, had contended that the foreign nationals who were charged were either acquitted or discharged with the state failing to prove their presence — and nothing was brought on record to prove that the Indians or foreign nationals who were charged had contracted Covid. The Indian Express takes a look at what happened in 2020 and the subsequent two years.
NDTV
18-07-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Court Junks FIR Against 70 Who Hosted Tablighi Jamaat Attendees During Covid
The Delhi High Court on Thursday quashed 16 cases against 70 Indian nationals for housing foreign attendees of Tablighi Jamaat congregation in March 2020 allegedly in violation of COVID-19 norms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said, "Chargesheets quashed." The court passed the judgment on 16 petitions relating to 70 Indians, who were represented by advocate Ashima Mandla, seeking quashing of FIRs registered against them. A detailed verdict is awaited. Delhi Police previously opposed the pleas for quashing of the FIRs registered for hosting foreign attendees of the congregation of March 2020 and said the accused local residents sheltered the attendees who had come to Nizamuddin Markaz in violation of the prohibitory orders on movement to contain the spread of COVID-19. The foreign nationals, named in some of the FIRs, either pleaded guilty to go back to their country or were discharged or acquitted previously. The petitioners contended there was no documentation on record in either the FIR or chargesheet to indicate that they had been infected by COVID-19 and, therefore, they could not have been accused of spreading the disease under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. The pleas alleged that the instant case was a classic example in which unsubstantiated allegations were "embellished and exaggerated". Their counsel argued that while the prohibitory orders issued by the Delhi Government specifically prohibited religious congregations and religious gatherings, the attendees who were found inside mosques or in houses were merely provided shelter. The petitioners further claimed the FIR showed the only allegation against them was their alleged presence inside the mosque along with foreign nationals. However, there was no whisper of either any religious or social gathering being held inside the mosque or of the petitioners being COVID-19 positive, they argued. The petitioners were booked under Section 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), Section 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection) and other offences of IPC. The police alleged numerous inspections were carried out in Nizamuddin Markaz from March 26-31, 2020 in connection with another FIR and several foreign nationals were found to be residing there. However, in early April 2020, it received information that several foreign nationals were residing in Chandni Mahal area and after investigation, "it became clear that the members of the Jamaat had moved from the Markaz in Nizamuddin" which was in derogation of the prohibitory orders by the local authorities, the police had claimed. Police said on March 24, 2020, the Centre also imposed a nationwide lockdown. By accepting and allowing them to reside in the local mosque without any social distancing, it alleged, the accused also breached the Delhi government order closing religious places.
