Concerns over the legal validity of charges and police conduct during the pandemic lockdown
NEW DELHI — The case surrounding the Tablighi Jamaat event held in March 2020 at the Nizamuddin Markaz in the national capital has been a point of contention ever since the COVID-19 pandemic began spreading across the globe. The event, which drew Muslims from various countries, became embroiled in controversy after claims were made that foreign nationals gathered at the Markaz were responsible for spreading the virus.
Following the outbreak of COVID-19 in India and the subsequent nationwide lockdown, accusations were levelled by certain Hindu organisations, claiming that the Tablighi Jamaat members facilitated the spread of the virus. This narrative sparked a widespread social media campaign and public outrage, which ultimately led to the involvement of the Union Home Ministry and the registration of cases by the Delhi Police against those associated with the event.
As the legal battle continued, a petition was filed in the Delhi High Court, where the accused sought the dismissal of charges against them. A bench of Justice Neena Bansal on Monday reserved its verdict on the matter, following the completion of arguments. These petitions relate to 16 FIRs filed against 70 Indian nationals involved in the Tablighi Jamaat event, charging them under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Epidemic Diseases Act, the Disaster Management Act, and the Foreigners Act.
Initially, a case was registered against 195 foreign nationals who were allegedly involved in the event. However, the charges against many of them were later dropped, with the court invoking the Double Jeopardy principle, which prevents an individual from being prosecuted twice for the same offence.
The Delhi Police had registered multiple FIRs under the IPC, including Sections 188, 269, 270, and 120-B, related to unlawful assembly and spreading a dangerous disease. The charges were framed after a probe by the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police, which also accused the foreign nationals of violating the Foreigners Act. In total, 28 cases were registered across Delhi, involving 193 individuals.
Despite the gravity of the charges, the case has raised numerous questions regarding the legal procedures followed. Advocate Ashima Mandla, representing the petitioners, highlighted that the required legal procedures had not been adequately followed in these cases. Additionally, the evidence presented was seen as insufficient, leading to the dismissal of similar cases in other parts of India. This has raised doubts about the credibility of the charges and the fairness of the investigation.
The Delhi High Court has become the focal point for these concerns, with legal experts questioning the police’s handling of the case. Advocates representing the accused pointed out that the necessary legal requirements were ignored in the filing of charges against the Tablighi Jamaat members, particularly in relation to the evidence supporting these claims.
“The police failed to follow due legal process, and the evidence provided was weak at best,” said Advocate Mandakini Singh, who also appeared for the petitioners. “These charges were based on sweeping allegations, and there was little to no substantive proof to justify their prosecution.”
The case has not only sparked a debate over the legal validity of the charges but also raised concerns about the broader implications of such actions. Critics argue that the Tablighi Jamaat case reflects a dangerous trend of targeting specific communities based on unfounded allegations. In this instance, the narrative of the “spread of COVID” was amplified by certain sections of the media and political circles, creating a climate of fear and hostility towards Muslims in particular.
As the court issues its final verdict, the question remains: Was the action taken by the police a genuine effort to enforce the law, or was it an exercise in scapegoating a minority community during a time of crisis?
Regardless of the court’s decision, the Tablighi Jamaat case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of adhering to legal norms and principles, especially in times of national emergency. It also highlights the need for authorities to be vigilant in ensuring that no community is unjustly blamed or vilified in the midst of a crisis.
The verdict, when delivered, will have significant ramifications not only for those involved in the case but also for how the police handle such sensitive matters in the future. As legal experts and human rights advocates continue to scrutinise the case, the focus remains on ensuring that justice is served, and the actions of the authorities are held to the highest standards.
