The Allahabad High Court, while rejecting the bail application of an accused in the Bareilly violence case, has clearly held that,
“….it is clear that the slogan raised by an individual person or by a crowd that ‘gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda’ is a challenge to the authority of law as well as sovereignty and integrity of India as the same incites the people for arm rebellion, therefore, this act not only will be punishable under Section 152 BNS but also against the basic tenets of Islam.”
The Court further added that the slogan “sar tan se juda” finds no mention in the Quran or in any other religious text of Muslims. Despite this, many Muslim persons are widely using this slogan without understanding its real meaning and effect. Any call for “mob-imposed punishment” beyond the punishment prescribed by law is against constitutional values and such conduct falls within the ambit of serious offences including Section 152 BNS.
The said order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal while rejecting the bail application of the accused Rihan.
As per the case, on 26 September 2025, despite the enforcement of Section 163 BNSS (prohibition on assembly of more than five persons), Maulana Taukir Raza, President of Ittefaq Minnat Council (INC), and leader Nadeem Khan, allegedly incited a crowd in the Biharipur area of Bareilly to assemble at Islamia Inter College to protest against “atrocities and false cases against Muslim youth.” A gathering of more than 500 persons raised anti-government slogans, including the controversial ‘beheading’ slogan. When the police intervened, the crowd turned violent and allegedly snatched police batons, tore uniforms and resorted to petrol bomb throwing, firing and stone pelting. Several police personnel were injured and many police and private vehicles were damaged. Seven persons, including the present applicant, were arrested from the spot. Based on their statements, the names of several other persons surfaced, including the main accused Maulana Taukir Raza and Nadeem Khan.
On the basis of the statements of arrested accused, identification of co-accused, information from independent witnesses and examination of CCTV footage, an FIR was registered against 25 named and 1700 unknown persons at Police Station Kotwali, Bareilly, under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
The Court, while explaining the spirit behind religious slogans prevalent in different religions, observed that such slogans are raised to express devotion and respect towards the concerned God or Guru, such as “Nara-e-Takbir”, “Allahu Akbar”, “Jo Bole So Nihaal”, “Jai Shri Ram”, “Har Har Mahadev”. Raising such slogans by an individual or a crowd is not an offence per se, unless they are maliciously used to intimidate or threaten persons belonging to other religions.
The Court, while giving a historical background, observed that the origin of this slogan is not found in Islamic scriptures but in political turmoil in Pakistan. In 1927, the British Government enacted the blasphemy law, declaring the hurting of religious sentiments a criminal offence.
Thereafter, following the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, Pakistan enacted its own blasphemy law providing punishment for disrespect to religion or the Quran. Subsequently, during the regime of Pakistani Army Commander Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq, amendments were introduced in 1982 by inserting Section 295-B, providing life imprisonment or death for disrespect to the Quran.
In 1986, another amendment was made by inserting Section 295-C, making disrespect to “Huzur Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam” punishable with life imprisonment or death. Thereafter, the Shariat Court of Pakistan made the law even stricter by directing that disrespect to other Prophets would also be punishable only with death.
In 2011, a Christian woman Asia Bibi was convicted under Pakistan’s blasphemy law. The then Governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, who was educated in London, supported Asia Bibi. This led to massive unrest in Pakistan and large-scale protests under the leadership of Mulla Khadim Hussain Rizvi, during which the slogan, “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda” was used for the first time. Subsequently, this slogan spread to other countries including India and has been widely misused by some Muslims to intimidate people of other religions and challenge the authority of the State.
The Court also emphasized that India’s constitutional and legal framework does not accept a religious punishment system like Pakistan. The basic tenets of Islam are founded on compassion and tolerance, and a call for violence itself amounts to disrespect to those principles.
The Court stressed that,
“The Constitution of India provides freedom of speech and expression as well as other liberties to all Indian citizens irrespective of their caste, creed or religion. Therefore, if a person, instead of respecting the law framed under the Indian constitution, attempts to challenge the law or promotes or incites people to commit an offence in the garb of providing punishment, though the same is not provided in the criminal law then that should be dealt with strictly.”
The Court further observed that the life and conduct of Prophet Mohammad were guided by compassion, tolerance and forgiveness, not retaliation. Referring to the incident of Taif, the Court noted that Prophet Mohammad adopted kindness and goodwill even towards those who ill-treated him. The non- muslim woman neighbour who used to throw garbage in his path was never shown anger by him, rather, when she fell ill, he visited her and served her, which ultimately led her to embrace Islam.
Relying on this example, the Court held that raising slogans like “sar tan se juda” not only challenges Indian law but also amounts to disrespecting the teachings of Prophet Mohammad and the core principles of Islam.
Finally, the Court categorically held,
“The Constitution of India permits the right to assemble and freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, but it has certain limitations as per Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, any slogan by a crowd that provides a death sentence contrary to the appropriate punishment provided by the BNS or other criminal law is not only against the constitutional object but also a challenge to the lawful authority of the Indian legal system and also punishable under Section 152 BNS.”
Thus, bail application of the applicant was rejected.
Case: Rihan vs State of U.P.
