Pavan Korada 
New Delhi: Delhi Police filed a first information report, raided offices in connection with and allegedly attempted to detain Nadeem Khan, the national secretary of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, after posts on social media by Hindutva supporters levelled allegations against him.
On November 29, Delhi Police conducted a raid at the Delhi office of the APCR. The following day, November 30, police attempted to detain Khan, at his brother’s residence in Bengaluru.
‘Pure harassment’
These actions followed an FIR filed on November 30, prompted by a post on X by one ‘Mr Sinha’. The post alleged that an APCR exhibition – which documented human rights violations against minorities and named senior government officials, including the prime minister and Union home minister – promoted enmity and violence.
“This is pure harassment,” Apoorvanand, a political commentator and professor, told The Wire. “This is a phoney and bogus case and an attempt to harass, intimidate, and silence him and APCR and also send a signal to other activists.”
In a letter to the Shaheen Bagh station house office, Khan stated that four plainclothes officers, including the SHO himself, arrived at his brother’s Bengaluru residence at 5 pm on November 30, requesting him to accompany them to Delhi for questioning related to the FIR. “We shouldn’t call it attempted arrest because there is no arrest warrant,” said Apoorvanand. “They were telling him informally that the DGP wants to have a chat with him.”
‘Notice was an afterthought’
Khan emphasised that he was in Bengaluru for work, had no prior knowledge of the FIR, and had not been served any notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Apoorvanand added that the police remained at the Bengaluru residence until 10.30 pm, pasting a notice on the ACPR’s office wall in New Delhi only after Khan’s lawyers challenged their attempts. “Before that they didn’t have the notice. When they were told by the lawyers that they couldn’t take him, they then put up this notice as an afterthought, apparently.”
Khan also pointed out in his letter that the FIR, filed at 12.48 pm that same day, listed charges carrying sentences under seven years, precluding arrest under the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar precedent. He expressed surprise at the Delhi Police’s “hot haste” in traveling to Bengaluru for interrogation, especially given his assurances of cooperation upon his return to Delhi.
“The offences listed in the FIR – Section 196, 353(2), and 61 – carry punishments of less than three years. According to the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar judgment and Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the law prevents arrest under the current FIR since the punishment is less than seven years,” APCR member Fawaz Shaheen confirmed with The Wire.
“He will be back in Delhi soon and will cooperate with the investigation.” Shaheen added. “What is the point of pasting the same notice that was given to us in Bangalore last night on a wall in Delhi? This is just an attempt to scare us.”
Standoff between cops
The FIR, based on a video of Khan explaining the exhibition, charges him with promoting enmity between groups by depicting Muslims as victims and accusing ruling party leaders of spreading hate. Khan’s letter further revealed that on Friday night, 20 officers raided the APCR Delhi office without any prior notification or legal justification, questioning the security guard about Khan and other members.
Khan reiterated his willingness to cooperate with the investigation upon receiving a formal notice or returning to Delhi, emphasising he had no intention of evading the law and would submit himself to due process. His lawyers argued against his removal without a transit remand. This led to a standoff between the Delhi and Karnataka police, with the latter insisting on proper legal procedure. Khan’s brother has filed a complaint with Bengaluru police, accusing the Delhi officers of illegal detention.
The APCR exhibition, displayed earlier in Hyderabad, documented 10 years of human rights violations, focusing on issues like lynchings and demolitions. The exhibition itself, Shaheen explained, “talks about the implementation of guidelines on hate crimes and hate speech and what can be done in such cases – more like legal awareness.” He shared a few pamphlets that were distributed during the events.
APCR and activism
APCR, known for its legal activism in cases involving the persecution of Muslims, has successfully challenged government actions in court, including the Kanwariya notices and bulldozer demolitions in Uttar Pradesh. They have also been actively involved in supporting victims of alleged police brutality, such as in the Sambhal incident, where, according to Shaheen, APCR filed a PIL in the Allahabad high court regarding police illegally firing on protesters with four Muslims losing their lives in the violence. “The PIL only says that the UP police should follow legal guidelines. Since then there has been escalation,” alleged Shaheen.
Apoorvanand sees this case as part of a larger pattern of silencing activists. “APCR has been instrumental in getting bail for activist Javed Mohammed over a Facebook post he shared on the Sambhal killings. We saw this in the case of Zubair as well and how the UP police accused him under section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which criminalises acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India when he was simply exposing a hate speech by Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati. So this case is purely an attempt to silence all Muslim activists for speaking up for their rights.”
Khan’s lawyers expressed concern that more serious charges, like those under the National Security Act or Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, might be added against Khan after he is taken to Delhi.
The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) condemned the police actions, stating, “PUCL is shocked at the manner in which Delhi Police is conducting a targeted witch-hunt and harassment of human rights activist Nadeem Khan… at the instigation of a few social media accounts on X.”