The Allahabad High Court has taken a firm stance against a controversial religious slogan, declaring it a direct challenge to the nation's legal authority and its unity. The observation came during the rejection of a bail plea linked to a major violent incident in Bareilly.
Court's Strong Stance on Provocative Slogan
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while hearing the bail application of an accused named Rihan on Wednesday, made a significant observation. The court stated that the slogan 'gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saza, sar tan se juda' (the only punishment for insulting the Prophet is beheading) incites armed rebellion. It termed the chant as "a challenge to the authority of law as well as sovereignty and integrity of India."
The bench elaborated that this slogan, which prescribes beheading as punishment, directly confronts the Indian legal system rooted in democratic constitutional principles. Notably, the court pointed out that the slogan finds no basis in the Quran or any other authentic Islamic religious text. It observed that many people use it widely without understanding its correct meaning and dangerous implications.
The Bareilly Violence Case Details
The case stems from a violent episode on May 26, 2025, in the Biharipur area of Bareilly. According to the prosecution, a crowd exceeding 500 people assembled following a call by Maulana Taukir Raza, the president of an organization called Ittefaq Minnat Council.
Despite prohibitory orders under section 163 of the BNSS being in force, the crowd gathered after namaz. The state informed the court that the assembly raised anti-government and provocative slogans, including the contentious 'sar tan se juda' chant. The situation escalated into violence where police personnel were attacked, and public and private property was damaged using stones, petrol bombs, and even firing.
An FIR was registered against Maulana Taukir Raza, six others, and later expanded to 25 named and approximately 1,700 unknown accused. The charges include serious sections like attempt to murder, causing hurt to deter public servants, and provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
Bail Rejection and Legal Arguments
Rihan, seeking bail, was alleged by the police to be part of the unlawful assembly. The court noted that the case diary contained sufficient material showing his involvement not only in raising objectionable slogans but also in causing injuries to police and damaging property.
"Therefore, this court does not find any ground to release the applicant on bail," the bench concluded, emphasizing that the acts were an offence against the state. The court stated he was arrested from the spot, a claim contested by his lawyer, Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi, who argued Rihan was falsely implicated and arrested from home.
Representing the state, Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi argued that the accused's actions promoted enmity between communities and were directed against the state and India's unity.
Court Distinguishes Devotional Slogans
In a nuanced part of the order, Justice Deshwal distinguished the problematic slogan from legitimate religious proclamations. The court acknowledged that slogans are used in every religion to show respect, citing examples:
- In Islam: 'Naara-e-takbeer' (Allahu Akbar) meaning God is the greatest.
- In Sikhism: 'Jo bole so nihaal, Sat Sri Akal' popularized by Guru Gobind Singh Ji.
- In Hinduism: 'Jai Shree Ram' or 'Har Har Mahadev' chanted in joyful moments.
The court clarified that raising such devotional calls is not an offence unless used maliciously to intimidate people of other faiths. This distinction underscores the legal boundary between religious expression and incitement to violence.
The bail rejection reinforces the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional order against calls for violence, setting a precedent for dealing with sloganeering that threatens national integrity.
