On Feb 21, Rajib Khan was reportedly attacked by a group of lawyers in court premises; when he with his Hindu partner reached court to register their marriage at Rewa in Madhya Pradesh.
While talking to PTI, the woman stated that her marriage took place on 28 June 2023 according to Islamic rituals. Now, she is three months pregnant.
While talking to PTI, the woman stated that her marriage took place on 28 June 2023 according to Islamic rituals. Now, she is three months pregnant.
She further added, ‘On Friday, a mob pushed me to the ground twice on the court premises. The town police inspector saved our lives by taking us to safety in his four-wheeler. I don’t know why these people are attacking us when my parents have no objection to our marriage.’
Rajib Khan also added, ‘I was beaten up by a group of lawyers inside my lawyer’s chamber. I sustained wounds and have taken a painkiller. The group abused us and cursed my wife, saying she should die. Advocate Sharda Singh, a lady lawyer and some friends saved us.’
The incident occurred inside their lawyer’s chamber, where the couple had gone to sign legal documents. They were told by some lawyers that marriage on a stamp paper was not valid. While discussing the issue, the woman, who was wearing a burqa, revealed her name, which was a “Hindu name” after which some lawyers asked to see the man’s Aadhar card, and after identifying his religion, they charged him with “love jihad.”
According to the Police station in-charge of Civil Lines, Kamlesh Sahu, ‘The woman had a Hindu name but was dressed in a burqa, so they got angry. She belongs to an upper caste family. They were being roughed up and pushed around.’ He also mentioned that, ‘On receiving information, we reached the spot and escorted both of them out of the court. They live in villages barely 5km from the district headquarters. A case has been registered against unidentified persons for assaulting the man. The woman’s family was informed, and she went with them. We have not received any complaint from her family.‘
The rising communalism in India is increasingly making it difficult for interfaith couples to marry and live together.
The rising communalism in India is increasingly making it difficult for interfaith couples to marry and live together. While these couples have always faced social pressure, earlier they could rely on the state for seeking protection and uphold their right to choose their life partner. However, with the rising influence of right-wing politics, the biased role of the judiciary is also contributing to the significant safety risks of interfaith couples.
Also, this incident of attack on a couple in court premises is not a single illustration of this kind of communal hatred but it is the second in a month in Madhya Pradesh.
On February 8, a Muslim man was assaulted by members of right-wing Hindu organisations, in a court of Bhopal, when he reached the court to complete the paperwork related to his interfaith marriage.
MP high court declares Hindu-Muslim marriage iInvalid, denies protection under special marriage act
On May 27, 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while hearing a petition filed by an interfaith couple, declared that the marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman was invalid under Muslim personal law and rejected their request for police protection to register the marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The counsel argued that an interfaith marriage would be valid under the Special Marriage Act and would take precedence over Muslim personal law.
The court also rejected the couple’s claim that they did not intend to convert religions or live together without marriage. Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia stated that even if the marriage was registered under the Special Marriage Act, it would still be considered “irregular” under Muslim law.
Instances of judicial bias, particularly concerning gender and religion, have been widely documented in various reports and articles. A data-driven analysis often reveals the extent of these prejudices within the legal system. In an effort to address gender bias, the Supreme Court introduced a handbook in 2023 aimed at curbing gender stereotyping in judicial proceedings. The guide seeks to help the legal fraternity recognise, understand, and eliminate discriminatory language against women. It also includes a glossary recommending gender-neutral terminology for legal documents, orders, and judgments.
Supreme court expresses concern over Karnataka HC judge’s ‘Pakistan’ remark
Despite such measures, concerns about judicial bias persist. A five-judge Special Bench, led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, in 2024, heard a suo motu case regarding controversial remarks made by Justice V. Srishananda. The case pertains to video clips capturing his alleged ‘Pakistan’ reference and sexist remarks directed at a woman lawyer during separate court proceedings on June 6 and August 28.
The bench observed on September 25, 2024 that such off-the-cuff remarks by judges not only cast them in a negative light but also erode public confidence in the judiciary. The Bench underscored that judicial officers must exercise restraint in their language, as their words carry significant weight and influence. The bench remarked, ‘You cannot call any part of the territory of India ‘Pakistan’… This is fundamentally wrong under the Constitution‘.
The rulings of different courts continue to raise questions about the judiciary’s role, especially when it comes to minorities and women the role of judges becomes even more questionable.
But these remarks are not enough. The rulings of different courts continue to raise questions about the judiciary’s role, especially when it comes to minorities and women the role of judges becomes even more questionable. A major example of this can be seen in the cases of Muslim youths including Gulfisha Fatima, Safoora Zargar, Shifa Ur Rehman Khan, Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, who were imprisoned after CAA-NRC protest, with allegations of involvement of Delhi riots 2020.
Almost five years have passed, yet many of them have not even had their trials begin. Whenever someone’s bail is granted, new cases are imposed on them.
In contrast, when the accused in the Sulli Deals and Bulli deals case were arrested, they were granted bail on the grounds that it was their first offense. But is their first offense not more serious than that of those who were jailed merely for protesting?
And even if we leave this comparison aside, it is worth noting that by granting leniency to the accused in the Sulli Bai Deals and Bulli Bai Deals cases, the court had increased the possibility of similar incidents happening again to minority women.
Cases expose growing saffron influence in legal decisions
In Uttar Pradesh’s Bahraich, during a Hindu religious procession in October 2024, Ram Gopal Mishra, a 22-year-old Hindu man, was allegedly shot by a Muslim man. During the procession he climbed on a roof of Muslim family and hosted a saffron flag in Maharajganj. Following this incident the communal violence broke out and houses were set on fire. Within a week of the incident the Uttar Pradesh government’s Public Works Department (PWD) issued a notice to demolish 23 properties in the area, with 20 of them owned by Muslims, including Raza’s, the alleged shooter.
Within a week of the incident the Uttar Pradesh government’s Public Works Department (PWD) issued a notice to demolish 23 properties in the area, with 20 of them owned by Muslims, including Raza’s, the alleged shooter.
The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench intervened, halting the demolition and granting residents 15 days to respond. Many were unable to meet the deadline, citing imprisonment or fleeing their homes out of fear of arrest.
India’s Supreme Court also stepped in after a plea was filed by Hameed’s lawyer, blocking the demolition action in Bahraich and directing the state government to suspend any further demolitions. The Supreme Court had earlier ruled that demolitions linked to criminal charges should be suspended unless the properties are encroaching on public land or near bodies of water or railways.
On October 15, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath visited the Mishra family and promised compensation of 1 million rupees ($12,500), a new house, and a government job for Roli Mishra, partner of Ram Gopal Mishra. Aasif Mujtaba, the head of the NGO Miles2Smile, which supports victims of religious violence, condemned the government’s response, alleging a clear bias in handling communal conflicts.
While talking to Al Jazeera he added ‘Mishra climbed over a Muslim man’s house, removed an Islamic flag, had criminal intentions and was attempting to incite a riot. His actions were responsible for the communal violence. The chief minister of the state is meeting and financially compensating the family of a person who should have a criminal case against him.’
A petition was filed claiming demolition of a temple to build the Jama Masjid at Chandausi, Sambal in 1526, on the basis of which the Civil court in Sambhal ordered a survey of the mosque on 19 November 2024. It raised communal tensions in Sambal. On November 24, 2024, four persons lost their lives. After this, the Supreme Court directed a trial court in Sambhal to suspend the proceedings in the case.
On November 24, 2024, four persons lost their lives. After this, the Supreme Court directed a trial court in Sambhal to suspend the proceedings in the case.
Member of Parliament from Hyderabad A. Owaisi asked ‘If according to the Places of Worship Act, the character and nature (of a religious place) can’t be changed, then why still the survey was ordered?‘
During 4 March 2025, the court agreed to consider the mosque a “disputed structure.”
A similar incident took place in Rajasthan
On 3 March in Rajasthan’s Vijaynagar, former councillor Hakim Qureshi, arrested in a molestation and ‘love jihad’ case, was beaten by lawyers inside Ajmer court in front of police.
PUCL condemned the incident by saying,
‘The job of lawyers is to seek justice, and they do not have the right to take the law into their own hands. It is unfortunate that such incidents are happening repeatedly in the Ajmer court premises, and no action has been taken against the perpetrators. Despite sufficient evidence of these incidents occurring in the presence of police, the morale of the culprits is being boosted due to the lack of action.’
