Delhi HC Quashes FIRs Against Tablighi Jamaat Members, Calls Charges “Abuse of Process”

Delhi HC Quashes FIRs Against Tablighi Jamaat Members: The Tablighi Jamaat, an Islamic religious group with international reach, came under intense scrutiny in March 2020 after it held a congregation at the Nizamuddin Markaz in Delhi. The event, attended by foreign and Indian nationals between March 13 and 15, became a focal point during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in India.

Following reports that an Indonesian man, who had allegedly attended the event, tested positive for COVID-19 in Telangana, a nationwide crackdown ensued. FIRs were registered across the country, foreign nationals were blacklisted, and the event was widely covered by media outlets, often with communal overtones.

Delhi HC Quashes FIRs Against Tablighi Jamaat Members: Court Ruling: Merely Staying in Markaz Not a Crime

On July 17, the Delhi High Court, in a detailed order made public on July 19, 2025, quashed 16 FIRs and related chargesheets filed against 70 Indian nationals linked to the Tablighi Jamaat.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, presiding over the case, ruled that the mere act of staying in a Markaz during the onset of the nationwide lockdown could not be construed as a violation of prohibitory orders. She observed that:

Also Read: BJP Government Boosts Bihar with Massive Investment, Says PM Modi in Rally

“Merely because they were living in a Markaz, it did not amount to a violation of the conditions of prohibitory orders.”

Lockdown Left the Accused “Helpless”

The court noted that the lockdown, which was suddenly announced and enforced from March 25, 2020, left many stranded and “helpless.” It recorded that the congregation had taken place before the prohibitory orders came into effect and that the attendees had not stepped out unlawfully afterward.

“The congregation had not been (held) subsequent to the notification under Section 144 CrPC. They were helpless people, confined on account of the lockdown,” the court held.

“No Evidence of Spreading COVID”

A key aspect of the judgment was the court’s observation that there was no evidence suggesting the accused had COVID-19, had spread the virus, or violated quarantine rules.

“There is not a whisper in the FIRs or the chargesheets that petitioners were found COVID-19 positive or had moved out negligently or unlawfully with intent or knowledge to spread the disease,” Justice Krishna noted.

The court found no material evidence in the chargesheets to substantiate offences under:

• IPC Section 269 (negligent act to spread infection)
• IPC Section 270 (malignant act likely to spread infection)
• Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
• Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005

Prosecution Failed to Prove Promulgation of Orders

For IPC Section 188 (disobedience to public servant’s order), the court ruled that the prosecution failed to show that prohibitory orders had been duly promulgated and conveyed to the accused.

“There is no averment whatsoever to show that any information was actually conveyed to the petitioners… The essential ingredient of promulgation to constitute an offence under Section 188 IPC has not even been established.”

Systemic Pattern of Acquittals Noted

The court took note of the broader legal landscape, observing that similar cases across the country had already resulted in either acquittals or discharges:

“All cases that were registered during the COVID-19 period under similar provisions before various courts across the country have ended either in acquittal or discharge.”

Past Crackdown and International Repercussions

Following the COVID-19 incident at Nizamuddin, the Delhi Police’s Crime Branch registered an initial FIR and filed 48 chargesheets and 11 supplementary chargesheets, including under the Foreigners Act. Over 950 foreign nationals were booked; 908 entered plea bargains, while others were discharged or acquitted.

Three foreign minors were spared prosecution, and many of the foreign nationals were blacklisted. Diplomats too were caught in the dragnet, drawing criticism from international quarters.

Supreme Court Had Earlier Flagged Media Bias

The case also ties into a larger narrative of communal profiling. In September 2021, then Chief Justice of India N V Ramana, while hearing petitions against news channels for their coverage of the Tablighi Jamaat event, had remarked:

“Everything in this country is shown with a communal angle by a section of the media… The country is going to get a bad name ultimately.”

Conclusion: A Judicial Rebuke to Targeted Prosecution

Justice Krishna concluded that no offence was made out even at a prima facie level, and that the continuation of such chargesheets would be “an abuse of the process” and contrary to the interests of justice.

“Even if the entire prosecution case is admitted, no offence is made out… These FIRs are liable to be quashed,” the court ruled.

This judgment marks a significant moment in the legal narrative surrounding the Tablighi Jamaat controversy, reinforcing judicial scrutiny over state action during crisis periods and highlighting the importance of fairness, evidence, and context in criminal prosecutions.