Human Rights Activist Nadeem Khan Accused of Promoting Enmity and Stoking Communal Tensions
New Delhi – Human rights activist Nadeem Khan faces serious accusations of inciting communal disharmony and spreading misinformation through a carefully crafted narrative that portrays a particular community as victims of systematic oppression by the current government. The Delhi Police, in an affidavit submitted to the Delhi High Court, alleges that Khan, National Secretary of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (ACPR), selectively highlighted incidents to bolster his narrative while deliberately omitting crucial facts that would have provided a balanced perspective. This selective dissemination of information, the police argue, is a calculated attempt to create an environment ripe for communal polarization.
The affidavit, filed on December 5th, opposes Khan’s petition seeking to quash the charges against him. The case stems from an alleged speech delivered by Khan during an exhibition in Hyderabad, a video of which surfaced on social media. The Delhi Police registered an FIR against Khan under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), accusing him of promoting enmity between groups and engaging in criminal conspiracy. The police contend that Khan’s actions suggest a deliberate attempt to provoke discontent and unrest, forming part of a larger conspiracy to undermine communal harmony and public order.
The police affidavit details Khan’s alleged strategy of "targeted dissemination of selective and misleading information" related to past incidents. By focusing solely on events that support his narrative of systematic oppression, Khan allegedly fosters feelings of victimization and persecution within the targeted community. The affidavit emphasizes that this selective portrayal is not only factually distorted but also calculated to incite unrest and destabilize communal harmony.
The FIR against Khan originated from a tip-off received by a sub-inspector on patrol duty. Secret sources informed the officer about a video circulating on social media, which allegedly caused "great anger among local people and could lead to violence." This video, presumed to be of Khan’s speech in Hyderabad, formed the basis of the police investigation and subsequent FIR. In his petition, however, Khan maintains his innocence, arguing that the FIR lacks any specific allegation of an offense punishable by more than three years imprisonment. He further contends that the FIR, based on secret information regarding a social media video, does not establish any criminal act on his part.
Khan and the APCR have also requested a stay on the investigation and protection from coercive action. They argue that the FIR is vague and does not specify the alleged offense. Furthermore, they claim that Khan’s speech, delivered within the context of an exhibition, does not pose a threat to national harmony. The High Court, while granting interim protection from arrest to Khan until December 6th, acknowledged that the nation’s harmony is not so fragile that mere shouting or an exhibition can disrupt the peace.
The case raises important questions about freedom of speech, the responsible use of social media, and the potential for misinformation to incite communal tensions. The Delhi Police’s accusations paint a picture of a deliberate and orchestrated campaign to spread discord. Khan, on the other hand, maintains his innocence and argues that his speech is protected under the umbrella of free expression. The High Court’s upcoming hearing on December 11th is expected to delve into the specifics of the case, examine the evidence presented by both sides, and determine whether Khan’s actions constitute a legitimate exercise of free speech or a calculated attempt to incite communal disharmony. The court’s decision will have significant implications for both freedom of expression and the maintenance of public order, especially in the context of the increasingly polarized political climate. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how the judiciary balances the fundamental right to free speech with the imperative to safeguard communal harmony and prevent the spread of misinformation that could incite violence.