Sambhal, UP: The Uttar Pradesh Police's decision to register a first information report (FIR) after recovering "I Love Muhammad" posters from a demolished mosque in Sambhal has triggered fresh debate over religious freedom, constitutional rights and the growing use of criminal law in matters involving Muslim religious expression.

The demolition and subsequent criminal case

The FIR was lodged after authorities demolished the Mustafa Qadri mosque in Kaserua village of Sambhal district on Saturday (June 6), claiming the structure had been illegally constructed on land designated as a graveyard.

According to the police, officers entered the building before the demolition and recovered 49 posters bearing the words "I Love Muhammad" along with a green flag carrying a crescent and star symbol. The posters were allegedly found beneath a mattress placed on a platform on the upper floor of the building. 

Eight people, including the mosque's mutawalli (caretaker) and committee members, have been booked under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with statements or publications that may promote hatred, enmity or ill-will between different groups.

The FIR alleges the recovered material had the potential to create resentment among the Hindu community and disturb communal harmony.

The case has raised a broader question among legal experts, opposition leaders and rights advocates: Can a declaration of religious devotion, found inside a mosque, be treated as material capable of promoting communal disharmony?

Sambhal’s history of communal sensitivity

The controversy emerges from a district that has remained politically and communally charged since violence erupted during a court-ordered survey of the historic Shahi Jama Masjid in November 2024.

The dispute began when Hindu petitioners claimed the Mughal-era mosque had been built on the site of an ancient Harihar temple. A local court ordered a survey of the mosque on November 19, 2024, which was completed without incident.

However, tensions escalated when a second survey was ordered by the court on November 24. Large crowds gathered around the mosque and clashes broke out between protesters and police. Stone-pelting, arson and violence followed, leaving at least four people dead and several others injured. Authorities imposed internet restrictions, shut schools and launched a major crackdown, registering cases against thousands of people.

The slogan has sparked controversy before

The latest FIR comes less than a year after another controversy involving the slogan "I Love Muhammad" spread across the state and later the country. The phrase became a nationwide flashpoint in September 2025 during Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi celebrations.

The dispute began in Kanpur, UP, on the eve of Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi after people objected to an illuminated banner reading "I Love Muhammad" put up in the Syed Nagar locality on September 4, 2025. 

What began as a local dispute soon expanded into a larger controversy. Muslim organisations and clerics maintained the slogan was merely an expression of love and reverence for Prophet Muhammad and was protected under the constitutional right to profess and practise religion. As the police removed banners and registered cases in several districts, protests spread to different parts of UP and later to other states.

The largest confrontation took place in Bareilly on September 26, 2025, when a protest organised in support of the campaign turned violent. Police clashed with the demonstrators, leading to injuries, arrests and a wider crackdown. The Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) reported at least 22 FIRs have been filed across India in connection with the campaign, naming more than 2,500 individuals.

Push back against the case

Against this backdrop, the Sambhal FIR has revived concerns among civil rights groups that expressions of Muslim religious identity are increasingly being subjected to police action and scrutiny. 

Samajwadi Party (SP) MP Zia ur Rehman Barq has strongly criticised both the demolition and the criminal case. Barq questioned what law had been violated by possessing posters expressing love for Prophet Muhammad. If a person keeps similar posters as part of his faith, he asked, under which legal provision can a criminal case be filed? If expressing affection for one's Prophet becomes the basis of prosecution, what remains of the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom?

Barq also added whether the responsibility of the administration is to create a society free from fear or to create fear around the expression of religious identity. He further challenged the demolition, asserting that the structure was registered with the Waqf Board and matters concerning waqf properties and religious institutions ought not to be decided at the local level without due process and a proper hearing.

Congress also attacked the FIR. Uttar Pradesh Congress committee organisation general secretary Anil Yadav asked how an expression of faith could be treated as a criminal offence. “If the constitution gives citizens the freedom to say ‘Jai Shri Ram,’ does it not equally guarantee the freedom to say ‘I Love Muhammad’,” he said.

Yadav also alleged that administrative action in the state increasingly targets Dalits, backward communities and Muslims and argued that the developments in Sambhal raise serious questions about the equal and unbiased application of constitutional protections. 

What legal experts think

Human rights activist and lawyer Deepak Bundele told the author that the FIR raises serious constitutional concerns. According to Bundele, India is a secular country and expressing love for Prophet Muhammad cannot by itself be treated as a criminal act. He argued that Article 25 of the Indian constitution guarantees the freedom of religion and protects the right of individuals to profess and practise their faith.

Bundele also disputed the controversy surrounding the green flag recovered during the demolition drive. He argued that flags bearing a crescent and star are commonly used at Islamic religious sites and should not automatically be equated with Pakistan's national flag. He highlighted that the FIR states that the flag only “appeared” similar to that of Pakistan. According to him, there is a significant difference between Pakistan's national flag and religious flags used by Muslims at mosques, shrines and religious gatherings.

Additional Superintendent of Police (North) Kuldeep Singh said objectionable material had been recovered from the structure, with the police investigation ongoing. However, when contacted for more details regarding the FIR and the status of the investigation, Singh declined to provide further information.

Legal expert Vertika Mani described the case as another example of the weaponisation of Section 353(2) of the BNS against religious expression. According to Mani, the issue goes beyond a dispute over posters and prompts larger questions about the treatment of Muslim citizens' right to practise their faith under Article 25 of the constitution.

She added that the criminalisation of a simple declaration of faith – effectively equivalent to saying "I love my Prophet" – displayed on posters within the premises of a mosque is deeply troubling. Mani said the controversy is not merely about posters, but also the possibility of criminalising an expression related to a particular religion itself. She also expressed doubts over the case withstanding judicial scrutiny.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.