Back
Rebuke Claims: UP Police Book Six in Ayush Malik Conversion Case
In a move that has sparked debate over the boundaries of free speech and police accountability, in Uttar Pradesh have registered a First Information Report (FIR) against six social media users—including an advocate—for allegedly circulating false claims that the had the police during proceedings in the high-profile Ayush Malik religious conversion case. The FIR, lodged under , accuses the individuals of distorting the court’s order and publishing “” information capable of .
The development underscores the growing tension between law enforcement agencies and citizens exercising their right to report on , particularly in matters involving religious conversion allegations under the . Legal professionals are closely watching the case as it raises questions about the permissible limits of commentary on court orders and the potential misuse of criminal provisions to stifle dissent.
Background of the Ayush Malik Conversion Case
The controversy traces back to a complaint filed on , by Devraj Malik, father of 31-year-old Ayush Malik, at Station. Devraj alleged that Chandni Qureshi, her father Islam Qureshi, and other family members had forcibly converted his son to Islam and were threatening him and his wife to accept Islam and transfer property. Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered under several provisions of the BNS, including Sections 318(4) (criminal intimidation), 336(3) (forcible conversion), 338 (wrongful confinement), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), and 308(5) (extortion), read with Sections 3 and 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act.
Chandni Qureshi and her father were arrested on , but later granted bail by the District and Sessions Judge, Shamli at Kairana, on . Meanwhile, on , one Sultan Qari—claiming to be a friend of Ayush Malik—approached the seeking directions for Ayush’s production, recording of his statement, and permission to live independently. The High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Shamli, to produce Ayush Malik before the court on .
On that date, both Ayush Malik and his father appeared before the High Court. After hearing their respective sides, the court granted Ayush Malik the freedom to go and reside anywhere according to his own wish, effectively setting him at liberty. Notably, the police were not required to file any counter-affidavit or reply affidavit, nor did they do so.
The FIR Against Social Media Users
According to the FIR lodged on , at Station on the complaint of Sub-Inspector Mohd Jahangir, six individuals and social media accounts are named: Karishma Aziz, Nikhat Ali (@INikhatAli), “The Muslim” (@TheMuslimSphere), Wasim Akram Tyagi (@WasimAkramTyagi), (@kaifsyedhasan), and Nadeem Saifi. Among them, is an advocate, which adds a layer of professional responsibility to the case.
The FIR alleges that these accused persons posted messages on X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook claiming that the had “फटकार लगाई गई है” () . The police describe this information as “भ्रामक एवं तथ्यहीन” (). Specifically, the FIR states that the accused “तोड़-मरोड़कर प्रस्तुत करते हुए” (by distorting and presenting) the High Court’s decision, circulated false information capable of affecting public peace.
The police have invoked Section 353(2) BNS, which deals with by spreading false information likely to cause public harm or disturbance. The provision carries a punishment of imprisonment up to one year or fine, or both. The FIR also records the full background of the Ayush Malik case to contextualize the alleged misinformation.
The Police Version and Denial of Rebuke
have categorically denied that the High Court reprimanded them during the proceedings. In a press note, the police emphasized that they had produced Ayush Malik and his father in compliance with the court’s order, and that the court did not require any counter-affidavit from the police. The police statement reads: “माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा पुलिस की ओर से किसी प्रतिशपथपत्र/जवाबी हलफनामे को दाखिल करने की अपेक्षा नहीं की गई थी तथा न ही पुलिस द्वारा कोई प्रतिशपथपत्र/जवाबी हलफनामा दाखिल किया गया है।” (The High Court neither required any counter-affidavit/reply affidavit from the police nor did the police file any such affidavit.)
The police further appealed to the public not to treat any information, post, or video circulated on social media as true without verification, and urged reliance on official police handles for accurate information.
Legal Analysis: Section 353(2) BNS and Misinformation
The use of Section 353(2) BNS in this context raises several legal and constitutional questions. The provision criminalizes the dissemination of false information that is likely to cause or disturb public order. However, the threshold for what constitutes “misleading” or “factless” information is often subjective. In this case, the core factual dispute is whether the High Court “” the police. The police claim no such rebuke occurred, while the social media users evidently interpreted the proceedings differently—perhaps viewing the court’s direction to produce Ayush and the subsequent order as of police handling.
Critically, the FIR does not allege that the posts incited violence or caused any actual breach of peace, only that they were “capable of affecting public peace.” This vague standard could potentially chill legitimate reporting and commentary on . The has repeatedly held that the right to under includes the the functioning of public authorities, including the police, so long as it does not lead to public disorder or defamation.
Moreover, the inclusion of an advocate among the accused is significant. Lawyers have a duty to uphold the rule of law and may be held to a higher standard of accuracy when commenting on court orders. However, they also have a professional obligation to inform the public about judicial developments. The fine line between and misinformation will likely be tested in court.
Implications for Legal Professionals
This case serves as a cautionary tale for legal professionals active on social media. Advocates must exercise before posting about ongoing cases, especially when the post could be construed as casting aspersions on police or judicial conduct. The FIR against may also prompt bar councils to consider guidelines for lawyers’ online conduct.
On a broader level, the case highlights the potential to target individuals who report on court proceedings. If the police’s version is accurate, the posts were indeed false and could have misled the public. But if the posts were a reasonable interpretation of the court’s demeanor or order, the FIR may be seen as an overreach.
The legal community will be watching how the courts treat this FIR—whether they quash it under for or allow it to proceed, setting a for future cases involving social media commentary on judicial matters.
Conclusion
The rebuke claims case encapsulates the ongoing struggle between the need for accurate reporting on and the state’s interest in maintaining public order. As the FIR moves through the criminal justice system, it will likely force a reckoning with the scope of Section 353(2) BNS and the limits of free expression in the digital age. For now, the six accused—including an advocate—face the prospect of a criminal trial for posts that alleged a judicial rebuke that police deny ever happened.
