Although the state has withdrawn the infamous ‘Çorona Jihad’ case, the atmosphere it helped create — of fear, suspicion, and communal blame — has to be addressed pragmatically
NEW DELHI – The Delhi High Court’s recent exoneration of 70 Tablighi Jamaat members in the ‘Corona Jihad’ case is only a small victory for the accused, who were vilified and humiliated for about five years and subjected to intense media scrutiny.
Five years after they were charged and forced to wait in legal limbo, the 70 people linked to the Tablighi Jamaat congregation of March 2020 in South Delhi’s Nizamuddin area were cleared of all charges on July 17. The legal process has ended, but the damage to their reputation and community trust remains significant.
The court ruled that the FIRs filed against them were an abuse of legal process, but right activists and the community pose deeper questions: Can the court findings erase the months and years in which a communal narrative took hold, linking Muslims to the spread of the virus and turning the Jamaat into a national scapegoat?
In March 2020, the Tablighi Jamaat’s religious event drew thousands of devotees, including foreign nationals, before the national lockdown during the Corona pandemic.
The event was portrayed as a super-spreader, with terms like “Corona Jihad” used to describe it. This narrative was amplified by the media and official statements, leading to widespread Islamophobia.
Over 2,700 Jamaat members faced FIRs across 11 states, with many being blacklisted or jailed. The Delhi High Court’s ruling found the charges baseless, describing the FIRs as “embellishments and exaggerations.”
The Muslim community faced social ostracism, loss of livelihoods, and mental trauma. Muslims reported feeling targeted and stigmatised, with local businesses and the dargah in Nizamuddin suffering due to misinformation and deliberate targeting of the community.
Activists and scholars claim that the case reflects systemic bias and the weaponisation of public health measures against minorities. They emphasise the need for accountability and compensation for those affected
The court’s decision is seen as a step towards justice, but many believe it cannot fully undo the harm inflicted by years of vilification. The case underscores the challenges faced by Muslims in the country, where religious identity often intersects with social and economic marginalisation.
The court quashed 16 FIRs and associated charge sheets against the 70 accused who were charged for conspiracy and public health violations—for allegedly hosting foreign nationals during the first week of the national lockdown in March 2020.
The events at the Tablighi Jamaat headquarters preceded the lockdown. Over 3,000 people—Indians and foreign nationals—had gathered for the religious event at Banglewali Masjid. The WHO declared COVID-19 a global pandemic on March 11. That same day, India suspended visas. Delhi capped public gatherings on March 13, and further reduced the limit to 50 on March 16. A full national lockdown began on March 25.
After a few Indonesian attendees tested positive for COVID-19 in Telangana, Delhi Police sealed the Tablighi Jamaat headquarters, evacuated the area, and began registering FIRs.
The first FIR against Indian attendees was filed on March 31, invoking the Epidemic Diseases Act, the Disaster Management Act, and multiple IPC sections. Eventually, 960 foreign nationals were also charged. Most entered plea bargains. Others were acquitted or discharged.
The Delhi High Court’s 51-page ruling found the charges baseless. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna described the FIRs as “embellishments and exaggerations”. The court ruled that continued prosecution was an abuse of criminal law and a violation of the petitioners’ right to dignity under Article 21.
The court noted that the individuals had been residing in mosques before the lockdown began. After the curfew, they had no way to leave. No evidence showed they attended new gatherings or violated public health orders. Nor was there any proof that they contracted or spread COVID-19.
“They were confined due to the lockdown,” the judgment said. “The gathering took place before Section 144 was imposed. Their movement was restricted by circumstances. They cannot be held responsible for staying in place,” the court ruled.
Despite the court’s exoneration, the stigma attached to Tablighi Jamaat members persists. The court’s ruling described the FIRs as “embellishments and exaggerations,” but the damage to their reputation and community trust has been long-lasting. Many members faced social ostracism, loss of livelihoods, and mental trauma due to the widespread vilification they endured.
