Religious rights, the courts, and the State

In recent months, Uttar Pradesh has been in the news for troubling reasons.

- Insiyah Vahanvaty Ashish Bharadwaj

The latest incident comes from Bareilly, where police detained 12 Muslim men for offering namaaz (prayers) inside a private home, with the permission of the homeowner.Citing Section 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (which permits warrantless arrests on suspicion of a serious offence) the police justified the action on grounds of "public order" after a secretly recorded video of the prayers surfaced on social media. Evidence pointing to intent or actual threat to public order, however, remains absent.

In September 2025, a controversy began in Kanpur, where police filed FIRs against citizens displaying banners reading "I love Muhammad", sparking widespread protests. The crackdown quickly spread to other districts, leading to a staggering 4,500 Muslims being booked under various charges. In Bareilly, the state escalated matters with violence, shop closures, and FIRs for rioting. Most alarming, however, was the open defiance of judicial authority. Despite the Supreme Court's order in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures and clear Allahabad High Court directions expressly prohibiting punitive demolitions, properties linked to protesters were bulldozed. These are not administrative overreach; they are constitutional injuries that reveal a system that penalises group identity rather than individual culpability.