On Tuesday (16th April), the Supreme Court of India slammed the petitioners who had approached the court with a PIL related to cases of mob lynching. Criticising the petitioners, the bench stressed that they cannot be selective about cases that they highlight before the court.
A three-judge bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar, and Justice Sandeep Mehta specifically mentioned the murder case of the Hindu tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur. He was killed by two Islamists in 2022 for allegedly supporting Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nupur Sharma.
During the hearing, the bench asked, “What about that tailor in Rajasthan… Kanhaiya lal… why was he lynched?” When the counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter was not included in the PIL, the bench remarked, “You have to ensure that it is not selective at all if all States are there…”
Now, it is pertinent to note that the counsel for the petitioners in this PIL about mob lynching is the controversial advocate Nizam Pasha.
He has been one of the petitioners in cases that try to peddle the narrative of Muslim victimhood. These include the petitions against the Hijab ban in state-run schools, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), and challenging Allahabad HC’s order permitting an ASI survey at the Gyanvapi complex. He is also one of the lawyers in the Electoral bonds case and also appeared in the Manipur violence case.
In February 2022, he made a controversial tweet where he claimed that Hijab protects Muslim women from molestation. In his tweet, Pasha cited Quranic verses to say how hijab helps molesters distinguish Muslim women so they can be spared.
Citing Quran 33:59, Pasha tweeted, “Holy Quran 33:59 explains why Muslim women should wear a hijab. “So that they can be recognised as Muslim and not be harassed.” The hijab is meant to tell people that this is a strong woman with a strong community standing behind her that you are taking on, so tread with caution.”
In September 2022, arguing that the Hijab is a mandatory practice in Islam, Pasha alleged that the Karnataka High Court misquoted the Quran to uphold the hijab ban.
In the Supreme Court, he submitted that the Karnataka HC had referred to an unrelated verse, which stated that nobody can be compelled to convert to Islam, to hold that hijab was not mandatory. He further stated that the High Court had referred to the opinion of a translator of the Holy Quran and not the translation of the text itself. He claimed the verses cited in the High Court were concerning “jilbab”, which covers the whole body as opposed to “Hijab” which only covers the head and chest. He said that the translator had meant that “jilbab” was not mandatory and not hijab.
In March 2024, during a hearing on pleas seeking a stay on CAA in the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta came down heavily on one of the petitioners’ counsel, Advocate Nizam Pasha. SG Mehta criticised him for needlessly dragging NRC into the CAA issue. He accused Pasha and ilks of attempting to peddle falsehoods and fan fear psychosis in Muslims that they will be out of NRC.
Strikingly, Pasha had submitted, “Muslim members left out of NRC will be prejudiced.. 19 lakhs people left out of NRC, it applies to them”.
Retorting to it, Mehta said, “NRC is not an issue (in this case). This attempt was made outside the court four years back. Misleading people that you will be out of NRC. Same thing Mr. Pasha did. NRC is not an issue here. Grant of citizenship is. Please don’t do this.”
Pasha, who has been writing for leftist propaganda portals, The Quint and The Wire has been furthering the trope of alleged persecution of Muslims. In an article in The Indian Express, he vehemently criticised those who oppose expanding the political footprints of Asaduddin Owaisi, alluding to communal representation.
In one of his articles for The Wire, he defended the anti-CAA protests which had spiralled into large-scale violence and anti-Hindu Delhi riots. In an article titled, For the First Time Since Independence, Muslims Have Emerged on to the Streets, Pasha heaped praises on Muslim men and women for taking to the streets.
According to him, many instances should have awakened the Indian Muslims to come out on the streets.
He added, “The intention here is not to communalise and colour what is quintessentially a pan-India people’s movement as a Muslim movement. It is only to emphasise that for the first time since independence, Muslims have emerged onto the streets to raise their voice and claim an equal share in the political discourse of their country.”
Citing the history of Jamia Milia Islamia, he stressed that it was apt that the protest (which turned violent) started in Jamia.
Praising Muslims for taking to the streets, Pasha wrote, “Men and women, old and young, have taken to the streets and decided to speak for themselves. Unlike the #Notinmyname protests of 2017 to protest the lynching of Muslims in the name of gau raksha (cow protection), where persons of all other communities came together (on a much smaller scale) to say that they do not want atrocities against Muslims to be perpetrated on the pretext of protection of Hinduism, this time Muslims are not merely the object of the protest, they are leading the movement from the front.”
In the article, he also defended the controversial anti-Hindu poem by Faiz Ahmed Faiz, ‘Hum Dekhenge’, claiming that the meaning of its pejorative words meant something else.