In a recent address, Advocate Shahrukh Alam challenges the double standards in the judicial treatment of Muslim protests and demonstrations in India
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI — In a thought-provoking address at the “Curtailed Freedoms: A Travesty of Justice” program held at the Constitution Club here recently, Supreme Court advocate Shahrukh Alam highlighted what she described as “double standards” in how Muslim protests are perceived and treated in the country. She questioned why Muslim-led protests are frequently seen through the lens of terrorism, while protests by other communities are viewed more sympathetically.
She expressed frustration at the continued misrepresentation of Muslim protests in the media, courts, and among political leaders. “Every year, this meeting takes place, and every year, it seems like maybe next year there will be no need. Yet, here we are again,” she remarked, pointing out that the issues of judicial delays and biased proceedings remain unresolved.
One of the key points in her speech at the event, hosted by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) and Concerned Citizens Delhi, was the discrepancy in how Muslim names are repeatedly highlighted in judicial cases. “In my family, when we sit for breakfast, we often talk about how if Shahrukh is accused in any case, it will appear in the newspaper that ‘Shahrukh is absconding’ or ‘Shahrukh is arrested’. They never hesitate to name us, but why do courts and civil society feel ashamed to take the names of non-Muslims when discussing religious discrimination?”
The advocate discussed the 2020 anti-CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) protests in Delhi, where two sets of FIRs were filed. “One set targeted the protest leaders, while the other set named middle and working-class Muslims, accusing them of violence and looting. The court has recently acquitted 11 youths, stating the charges against them were false, yet there is no mention of punishing the police for framing them,” she added.
Naming individuals like Shahnawaz, Shoaib, and Rashid, she emphasised that countless Muslims were wrongly accused during the riots. “Many decisions have followed the same pattern of bringing Muslim names forward without any credible evidence,” she said.
A glaring inconsistency, according to her, lies in the legal treatment of protests. She referenced the recent protest by junior doctors of RG Kar Medical College in Kolkata, where the Supreme Court upheld their right to protest, recognising it as a reflection of national sentiments. “The court stated that protests are allowed when there are strong feelings against an issue of national importance. But does this only apply when the majority is involved? The same court remains silent when Muslim protests are framed as threats to national security,” Alam noted.
She called for clear judicial standards to be set regarding the interpretation of protests. “We must ask the courts what legal standard they apply when determining that a protest represents national sentiment versus when it is labelled a terrorist conspiracy. The government cannot set these standards as they are a party to the issue. This responsibility falls on the courts,” she said.
Alam further criticised the court’s differing treatment of disruptions caused by protests. “In one case, the court tolerates disruptions to routines during protests, as seen with the doctors, but in another case, it orders that Muslim protestors be removed from public places because they cause traffic jams. There is a clear double standard that must be addressed.”
