‘Institutionalised Communal Mindset’: Court Order In Sambhal Violence Case Sparks Political Storm

Lucknow: The Congress launched a fierce political assault on the Yogi Adityanath-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Uttar Pradesh on Friday, demanding an independent judicial inquiry by a sitting high court judge into alleged police excesses during the violent November 2024 clashes in Sambhal.

This escalation follows a significant judicial directive from a local court, which ordered the registration of an FIR against police personnel, including senior officers, for their alleged role in the incident – an order the police have openly refused to implement, branding it “illegal”.

At a press conference held at the Uttar Pradesh Press Club, All India Congress Committee secretary Shahnawaz Alam asserted that the January 9 order of the Chandausi chief judicial magistrate (CJM) has exposed the state government's internal inquiry into the Sambhal violence as a sham. Alam alleged that the sole purpose of the government probe was to exonerate the police and shield them from accountability.

“The CJM court's order itself questions the government-conducted inquiry into the Sambhal violence, which was clearly aimed at protecting the police by giving them a clean chit,” Alam stated. “That is why it is essential that the Sambhal police violence is investigated through a fresh judicial inquiry by a high court judge.”

Alam further demanded the immediate suspension and arrest of the then-Sambhal circle officer Anuj Chaudhary – whom he described as the chief minister’s “blue-eyed officer” – and then-station house officer Anuj Tomar. He argued that their continued freedom could obstruct the course of justice.

“To ensure that the judicial process is not influenced or derailed, both officers must be suspended immediately and sent behind bars,” he declared.

CJM Vibhanshu Sudhir on January 9 had directed the registration of an FIR against police personnel, including Chaudhary and Tomar. The case pertains to police firing during the violence that erupted on November 24, 2024 near the historic Shahi Jama Masjid.

The court's order came on a complaint filed by Mohammad Yameen, who alleged that his 23-year-old biscuit-seller son Mohammad Alam sustained three bullet injuries during the police firing amid clashes triggered by a court-ordered survey of the mosque. The violence resulted in at least four fatalities and dozens of injuries.

The CJM's court, which perused the victim's medical and X-ray reports alongside submissions made by the police, had ruled that a prime facie cognisable offence was made out in the case. That the victim's medical report mentions the terms “gunshot wound” and “police firing in riot” made the case “suspicious”, as did ‘contradictions’ between his medical report and doctors' statements obtained by the police, the court said.

Despite the court order, the Sambhal police have not complied. They have publicly termed the order illegal and announced their intention to challenge it before a higher court, creating a rare standoff between the judiciary and the executive machinery.

The communal clashes in Sambhal occurred on November 24, 2024, during the second court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. A local court had initially ordered the survey on November 19 following a petition claiming that the Mughal-era mosque was built over the remains of a demolished temple for Kalki, the prophesied avatar of Vishnu.

While the first survey on November 19 – conducted within hours of the court order – concluded peacefully, the second survey spiralled into violence. Tensions reportedly flared after the mosque's ablution tank was drained during the procedure, an act many locals perceived as desecration. Subsequent clashes saw police deploying lathi charges, tear gas and gunfire.

Official records state that at least four individuals died on November 24. In the aftermath, over 85 people were arrested. The escalating situation garnered national attention, prompting the Supreme Court to issue a stay on any further surveys of the mosque on November 29, 2024.

‘In Uttar Pradesh, police communalism has taken on an institutionalised form’: Congress

At the press conference, Shahnawaz Alam challenged what he termed the police's “baseless and illogical” claims designed to shield themselves from scrutiny.

“The police have primarily raised three questions in this entire case, all of which are factually and logically untenable,” Alam contended.

First, regarding the timing of the violence, Alam rejected some reported claims by the police that the clashes began prior to when the victim is said to have reached the scene according to his father's petition. “This is a technical excuse being used to hide the truth,” the Congress leader charged.

Second, addressing the police's insinuation that the victim acted suspiciously by hiding his identity during treatment, Alam labelled this a “media trial”. He cited the testimony of the victim’s father, Yameen, who told the court that multiple hospitals denied his injured son admission due to police pressure, forcing them to seek treatment clandestinely in Meerut.

“This proves that in Uttar Pradesh, a victim of police violence cannot even get medical treatment because of state pressure,” Alam alleged, claiming the episode exposed a “criminal nexus between communalised police and hospitals”.

He detailed the family's futile efforts for justice: an application in December 2024, followed by representations to the Sambhal senior superintendent of police, the Moradabad deputy inspector general of police, the state's director general of police and even chief minister Adityanath on January 1, 2025.

“Despite this, no FIR was registered,” Alam said. “Left with no option, in February he approached the court under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which gives a citizen the right to seek judicial intervention when police fail to act.”

Third, and most explosively, Alam addressed the forensic detail of the bullet calibre. The police have noted that the 7.65 mm (32 bore) bullet extracted from Alam’s body is not standard-issue for Uttar Pradesh police, who typically use 9 mm weaponry.

For Alam, this did not exonerate the police but instead confirmed a more sinister allegation. “The police claim is correct, and it confirms what we have been saying – that the police used external, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-linked elements during the use of force, who fired at protesters with private weapons while wearing police uniforms,” he alleged. He claimed this was a deliberate tactic to obscure forensic accountability.

Alam referenced past protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC). “In districts like Bijnor, the police adopted the same criminal method,” he said, alluding to an interview of former Bijnor senior superintendent of police Sanjiv Tyagi with the Caravan magazine.

“He admitted that ‘external elements’ were used during police action and that a 32 bore bullet was recovered from the body of Anas … who was killed during the protests.”

Alam added that Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi had submitted a report alleging a nexus between communalised police and RSS-linked elements to the National Human Rights Commission on January 27, 2020, but that no action had been taken so far.

The Congress leader also demanded a probe into the assets of Chaudhary and Tomar, alleging public discussion about “illegal extortion in Sambhal, involving adding and removing names from cases related to the violence”.

Controversy surrounding Chaudhary had intensified in March 2025 following remarks he made at a peace committee meeting before Holi. He advised Muslims uncomfortable with colours to stay indoors during Friday prayers, stating that “Holi comes only once a year, while Friday prayers happen 52 times”.

While his remarks drew widespread criticism for their apparent communal bias, chief minister Adityanath publicly defended Chaudhary. The CM characterised the officer’s comments as a straightforward attempt to prevent clashes and praised him as someone who spoke “like a wrestler”.

For Congress state organisational secretary Anil Yadav, this defence was a telling revelation. “Police communalism in Uttar Pradesh is no longer limited to individual conduct; it has taken an institutional form under political patronage,” Yadav asserted.

Referring to the chief minister’s “wrestler” comment, Yadav said, “When the chief minister said, ‘He was a wrestler, so he will speak the language of wrestling,’ it was not only unconstitutional but also an attempt to legitimise violent and communal language by the police.”

He added: “The police is not a wrestler in an akhara or a lathi-wielding agent of the government. It is a constitutional, professional institution bound by law, from which restraint, neutrality and constitutional language are expected.”

Yadav alleged that Chaudhary’s rhetoric mirrored the chief minister’s own, which he suggested explained his political protection.

Yadav expanded his indictment, linking the incident as part of a grim national pattern. “It is because of this institutionalised communal mindset that Uttar Pradesh continues to record the highest number of custodial deaths in the country. Dalits, OBCs and Muslims have been repeatedly targeted in fake encounters.”

He alleged the government was shielding officers like Chaudhary to protect their political patrons. “If legal action is taken against such officers, the role of their political patrons will also come to light. That is why the chief minister himself is defending them.”

Yadav called for special security for CJM Sudhir. “In such a situation, Chandausi CJM Vibhanshu Sudhir must be given immediate special security, so that his condition does not become like that of Justice Loya,” he said, invoking the judge who died while hearing a politically sensitive case.

When The Wire contacted Sambhal superintendent of police Krishan Kumar to seek clarification on compliance with the court order, his office said the police superintendent was on leave and unavailable for comment.

Lawyers divided over police refusal to register FIR

The standoff has also pointed to a divide within the legal community regarding the police's obligation to obey the court's directive.

Advocate Vertika Mani, organisational secretary of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, said that the Sambhal police are legally bound to follow a court order directing the registration of an FIR against police personnel, regardless of their intention to challenge it. “Merely intending to appeal, or even filing an appeal, does not suspend the operation of such an order,” she said.

Mani explained that unless a higher court explicitly stays the order, “non-compliance with the court’s direction becomes illegal”. She added that the police, as an executive authority, cannot delay action on their own. “Refusal to register an FIR despite a judicial order amounts to contempt of court and criminal misconduct,” she said.

In contrast, legal expert S.M. Haider Rizvi, an advocate practicing at the Allahabad high court's Lucknow bench, said the January 9 order should be seen in light of existing law. He said the police's decision to challenge the order is legally justified.

“The law clearly lays down certain steps before action can be taken against police officers doing official duty,” Haider said. He explained that a magistrate must first seek a report from a senior officer and consider the explanation of the officials concerned. “These steps appear to have been overlooked in this case,” he said.

Haider added that because of this, the police are within their rights to approach the sessions court. “Questioning the order is part of legal procedure, not defiance,” he said.

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