On 3rd January, a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court presided by Additional District Judge Vivekanand Sharan Tripathi in Lucknow sentenced 28 accused in the Chandan Gupta murder case to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other sections. Chandan was brutally murdered during violence that occurred during the Tiranga Yatra on 26th January 2018 in Kasganj, Uttar Pradesh. The accused were convicted on 2nd January 2025. In the judgment, the court raised concerns over the involvement of certain NGOs in the legal proceedings questioning their intentions and source of funding.
Notably, the court categorically stated that, based on legal precedents, it was evident that Muslims had perpetrated communal violence against Hindus. It further observed that seven members of the mob were armed with firearms and cartridges, while others engaged in stone-pelting and attacked Hindus with rods and sticks.
Concerns raised about the involvement of NGOs in communal cases in courts
From points 185 to 188 of the judgment (pages 123 to 126), the court raised significant concerns about a specific report submitted by defence counsel Zia Ul Jilani titled ‘Truth Of Kasganj: Sham Police Probe Protects Hindus, Frames Muslims’, which was published on 29th August 2018 by Citizens for Justice and Peace, Mumbai. CJP is the same organisation that ran the notorious campaign against then-Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, claiming he and other BJP/Hindu organisation leaders were behind the Gujarat Riots 2002. CJP claims to have been founded as a response to the Gujarat Riots. Its founding members include Teesta Setalvad, her husband, Javed Akhtar and others.
The court pointed out that the defence counsel himself admitted that the report did not mention that any team had visited Kasganj to prepare the findings. The court observed, “Such reports attempt to exert undue pressure on the judiciary, and their content raises questions about the integrity of the investigative process.”
The court also expressed grave concerns over the influence of certain NGOs, including Alliance for Justice and Accountability (New York), Citizens for Justice and Peace (Mumbai), Indian American Muslim Council (Washington DC), People’s Union for Civil Liberties (New Delhi), Rihaee Manch (Lucknow), South Asia Solidarity Group (London), and United Against Hate (New Delhi). It stated, “The communal sentiment subtly infiltrates human activities at the ideological level and is often manifested through reports and interventions by such NGOs. This court has often observed that when accused persons involved in anti-national activities are brought for trial, certain advocates, reportedly linked to these NGOs, are already present with vakalatnamas to represent them.”
On the issue of legal aid, the court underscored that while every accused is entitled to free legal assistance under the Legal Services Authorities Act and the CrPC, NGOs cannot claim an independent right to provide such aid. The court remarked, “The state must provide free legal assistance to individuals unable to represent themselves. When an accused is represented by a state-appointed defence counsel or amicus curiae, it strengthens their trust in the judiciary and the Constitution. However, advocacy by communal NGOs risks shifting allegiance towards the organisations rather than the state.”
Referring to the role of NGOs like Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, the court noted their claims of securing 400 acquittals in Indian courts by March 2019 through legal assistance. It stated, “If an accused is acquitted due to advocacy by a communal NGO, their allegiance tends to shift towards the NGO rather than the state. This fosters a narrow and dangerous perception of the judiciary, which undermines the faith in judicial processes.”
In a notable observation, the court questioned the intentions and funding sources of these NGOs. It stated, “What interest do NGOs like Citizens for Justice and Peace (Mumbai), People’s Union for Civil Liberties (New Delhi), Rihaee Manch (Lucknow), and United Against Hate (New Delhi), as well as foreign organisations such as Alliance for Justice and Accountability (New York), Indian American Muslim Council (Washington DC), and South Asia Solidarity Group (London), have in communal cases like Kasganj? Where does their funding come from, and what are their collective objectives?”
The court urged the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Chairman of the Bar Council of India to investigate these NGOs’ funding and activities and take necessary measures to prevent their undue interference in judicial processes. It further called for “all enlightened stakeholders, including the judiciary and bar associations, to reflect on the implications of such practices on communal harmony and judicial independence.”
Notably, the court mentioned eight NGOs in the judgment. OpIndia analysed the report submitted by the defence counsel and investigated the background of these NGOs.
The biased approach of ‘Truth Of Kasganj: Sham Police Probe Protects Hindus, Frames Muslims’
The report ‘Truth Of Kasganj: Sham Police Probe Protects Hindus, Frames Muslims’ mentioned by the court was released in August 2018 by Former IPS officer SR Darapuri, dubious activist Teesta Setalvad, Sandeep Pandey, advocate Shoaib Mohammad and The Wire’s columnist Apoorvanand. All these names have been associated with left-leaning organisations. OpIndia analysed the report and found that it was heavily biased against Hindus.
The authors of the report claimed that it provided an independent investigation into the violence that erupted in Kasganj, leading to the murder of Chandan Gupta. The report heavily criticised the police investigation into the violence and accused the investigation team of deliberate bias against Muslims while protecting Hindus involved in the violence. However, the court, in its judgment, categorically dismissed the report as an attempt to exert undue pressure on the judiciary and criticised its lack of credibility and failure to provide verifiable evidence.
The report claimed that the police split the investigation into two separate FIRs to frame Muslims in Chandan’s murder while protecting Hindus from accountability for their actions. It further asserted that the first FIR omitted critical details about the sequence of events, including the origins of the violence and the involvement of Hindu participants of the Tiranga Rally.
It also claimed that Muslims were disproportionately arrested and accused of crimes such as murder and rioting, while Hindus, despite evidence of firing, arson, and vandalism, were not subjected to comparable scrutiny. The report alleged that the police investigation was riddled with procedural flaws, delayed filings, and fabricated accusations aimed at vilifying Muslims.
The authors claimed that the police failed to investigate Hindus involved in the violence, including the leaders of the rally. They asserted that it was Hindus who instigated the violence and not Muslims, naming individuals such as Anukalp Chauhan as persons behind the violence. They further claimed that the testimonies of Muslims were ignored during the investigation.
The report’s tone and approach drew sharp criticism from the court, which observed that its findings lacked credibility due to the absence of on-ground investigation by the report’s authors. The court pointed out that the defence counsel representing the accused Muslims acknowledged that no investigative team had visited Kasganj to verify the claims made in the report. This admission undermined the report’s purported objectivity and lent credence to the court’s assessment that the document was an attempt to manipulate public opinion and judicial processes.
The report’s recommendations, including the withdrawal of charges against Muslims, fresh investigations, and the arrest of Hindus involved in the motorcycle rally, further reveal its overt partiality. The court noted that such recommendations, made without robust evidence, could encourage communal divisions and erode public trust in the judiciary. By presenting a one-sided narrative and selectively critiquing the police, the report appears to prioritise advocacy over accuracy.
In light of these shortcomings, the court’s criticism of the report as biased and lacking factual substantiation is justified. The document, while claiming to defend pluralism and justice, ultimately fails to provide an impartial or evidence-based account of the events in Kasganj. Instead, it serves as a contentious and polarising interpretation that undermines the judicial mandate to ensure fairness and accountability in communal violence cases.
After publishing the dubious report, Teesta and her fellow authors of the report organised talks and seminars to spread the disinformation. Video of the said seminar from August 2018 can be seen here and here.
NGOs mentioned by the court
Alliance for Justice and Accountability (New York)
The Alliance for Justice and Accountability (AJA) is the first NGO mentioned in the list. According to various news reports and articles on platforms like Medium, AJA is described as an umbrella organisation comprising “progressive groups across the United States.” A 2019 article on the website of the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) stated that AJA “is an umbrella coalition of various organizations dedicated to promoting the common values of pluralism, tolerance, social justice, and respect for human rights that form the basis of the world’s two largest secular democracies – the United States and India.”
Several individuals linked to AJA were identified by OpIndia, including Ashwin Khobragade, Nesamani Rajamani, and Sana Qutubuddin. Notably, the contact information for AJA in the aforementioned IAMC report was the same as that of IAMC itself, suggesting that IAMC might be either a founding member of AJA or a significant part of its structure. The organisation has a Facebook page where the last post dates back to June 2021.
Additionally, AJA has not been mentioned in news reports for an extended period, raising questions about its current activity. On X (formerly Twitter), AJA operates under the handle “StopHindutva”, which clearly reflects its ideological stance.
In September 2014, months after Prime Minister Narendra Modi assumed office for the first time, AJA organised an anti-Modi rally during his first visit as PM to the US.
Citizens for Justice and Peace (Mumbai)
The Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) is a Mumbai-based organisation that claims to be a “human rights movement dedicated to upholding and defending the freedom and constitutional rights of all Indians.” Founded by activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband, along with individuals such as Father Cedric Prakash, Anil Dharker, Alyque Padamsee, Javed Akhtar, Vijay Tendulkar, and actor Rahul Bose, the organisation has positioned itself as a significant voice in human rights advocacy in India.
CJP gained notoriety for its aggressive campaign against then-Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, BJP leaders, Hindu organisations, and individuals, accusing them of orchestrating the Gujarat riots of 2002. The organisation played a central role in framing the narrative that placed disproportionate blame on Hindu leaders and groups, portraying the riots as a one-sided “genocide.” This portrayal, however, has faced extensive criticism for being selective and biased, as subsequent legal proceedings and investigations revealed a more complex reality behind the events of 2002.
While CJP’s current website emphasises its broader mission, its archived page from 2021 and 2017 explicitly points towards the fact that it was formed in response to what it referred to as the “Gujarat genocide.” This terminology has been widely criticised for being inflammatory and for promoting a polarised view of the riots. Critics have argued that CJP’s approach has often focused on targeting Hindu groups while overlooking other aspects of communal violence, raising questions about its impartiality.
The organisation’s involvement in legal battles and campaigns has also been marred by controversies, particularly surrounding its founder, Teesta Setalvad, who has faced allegations of misappropriation of funds meant for riot victims. These controversies have further undermined the credibility of CJP’s self-professed commitment to justice and human rights. By persistently framing incidents like the Gujarat riots through a narrow, one-sided lens, CJP has contributed to deepening communal divisions rather than fostering reconciliation or holistic justice.
Teesta actively published posts to set a narrative against Hindus in Kasganj violence and claimed the police investigation was biased.
Indian American Muslim Council (Washington DC)
Indian Americal Muslim Council is a radical Islamist group that has alleged links with banned terror organisations such as the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and has a long history of lobbying against India. The IAMC is a Jamat-e-Islami-backed lobbyist organisation claiming to be a rights advocacy group. In the past, it had reportedly collaborated with and even paid money to various groups in the USA to get India blacklisted by the USCIRF (United States Commission on International Religious Freedom).
IAMC founder Shaik Ubaid and member Abdul Malik Mujahid have headed the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the US front for Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan. According to DisInfo Lab, ICNA has established links with Pakistan-based terror groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba. Rasheed Ahmed, who heads the IAMC currently, was the former executive director of the Islamic Medical Association of North America (IMANA). IMANA’s Director of Operations is Zahid Mahmood, an ex-Pak Navy official. Besides, the Indian American Muslim Council has ties with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) through its founder Shaik Ubaid. A detailed report by Disinfo Lab has exposed its links with the terror outfit Jamat-e-Islami.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (New Delhi)
People’s Union for Civil Liberties is a fraternal organization of the People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR). The People’s Union for Civil Liberties is the same organisation that has extensive links to Maoists. ‘Urban Naxals’ who were arrested in the Elgar Parishad case and in connection with an alleged assassination plot against the Prime Minister are intimately linked with the PUCL. The PUCL and its associate organisations have a history of ties to Naxals and separatists in Kashmir as well as Manipur.
Over the years, numerous members of the organisations have been arrested for their links to Maoists. One of those raided in connection with the violence at Bhima Koregaon, Sudha Bharadwaj, is the General Secretary of the Chhattisgarh unit of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL).
In September 2022, PUCL asked to lift the ban on the Popular Front of India (PFI). Notably, the ban was imposed on PFI for five years by the Union Home Ministry for its involvement in anti-India activities. A statement said that a dialogue with the PFI should be started. The organisation demanded that the authorities refrain from using their arrest powers arbitrarily to target Muslim youths based on their involvement or support of the PFI and its affiliates.
It urged that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the NIA Act be repealed but that, in the meantime, the NIA Act be altered to guarantee that the State government concerned was contacted, and approval was obtained before the NIA conducted a search or arrest a resident of that State.
Furthermore, PUCL also condemned actions against dubious journalist Rana Ayyub who was accused of misusing money collected through donations during Covid, and former Amnesty India employee Aakar Patel and even the raids on The Wire’s office in November last year.
Rihaee Manch (Lucknow)
It is a political front that claims to resist repression. It was involved in an array of protests including anti-CAA and farmer protests.
South Asia Solidarity Group (London)
The South Asia Solidarity Group (SASG), a London-based organisation, identifies itself as an anti-imperialist and anti-racist group. Established in 1987 by Amrit Wilson and Kalpana Wilson, SASG includes notable members such as former LTTE member Nirmala Rajasingham, Keval Bharadia, Saunvedan Aparanti, Sangeeta Kalia, and Shruti Iyer. Despite its claims of advocating for justice, the group has faced serious allegations of engaging in anti-India propaganda. In February 2024, the Indian government revoked Amrit Wilson’s Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) status, citing her involvement in “multiple anti-India activities” and “detrimental propaganda” against the government, which were deemed inimical to India’s sovereignty and integrity.
SASG’s controversial activities include its stance on the 2022 Leicester violence. The organisation blamed Hindus for the unrest, portraying them as aggressors. However, this narrative was contradicted by extensive reporting by OpIndia, which uncovered the involvement of Muslim leaders and groups in orchestrating attacks against the Hindu community. This deliberate misrepresentation aligns with SASG’s history of pushing one-sided narratives and vilifying Hindu groups while ignoring evidence pointing to other actors.
SASG’s activities and its members’ associations with controversial figures and groups raise serious questions about its credibility and motives. Its portrayal of incidents like the Leicester violence not only distorts the truth but also exacerbates communal tensions, undermining efforts to foster genuine harmony and understanding. The Indian government’s decision to revoke Amrit Wilson’s OCI status reflects the growing concern over SASG’s activities that are perceived as undermining India’s sovereignty and promoting divisive agendas.
United Against Hate (New Delhi)
United Against Hate (UAH) is a Muslim organisation that was accused of being involved in the anti-Hindu Delhi Riots of February 2020. It was started in 2017 by the likes of Umar Khalid, Nadeem Khan, Khalid Saidi, Banojyotsana Lahiri, and lawyer Tamanna Pankaj. Several of its members were booked in the Delhi Riots case, out of which, Khalid is currently launched in jail awaiting trial. Its social media accounts have been inactive since 2022. The organisation also participated in Farmer Protests. In 2019, OpIndia found its links to appeal for protests against CAA.
In early 2020, before the riots broke, OpIndia reported in January 2020 how their WhatsApp group was extensively used to mobilise protesters for anti-CAA campaigns. Even Home Minister Amit Shah had made a special mention of this organisation during the parliamentary debate on Delhi’s riots. Shah said in the parliament, “United Against Hate – the name sounds so pious but look what they advocated. They said, ‘(Donald) Trump is about to come, we should block the streets’.”
Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind (Legal Cell/Institute)
Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind has a notorious track record of defending individuals associated with numerous terrorist activities. They have provided legal aid to terrorists linked to organisations like ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba. Reports suggest that the organisation’s legal cell, which was established by its chief Maulana Mahmood Asad Madani in 2007, has taken up cases and enlisted lawyers to defend terror accused in the courts across the country, a stance that poses a serious threat to national security and social harmony. In this case, too, JUT has provided legal aid to the accused.
In 2022, OpIndia published a report that explained how Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind has defended around 700 terror-accused individuals resulting acquittal of at least 192 since 2007. Most of the acquittals were due to technicalities, lack of evidence and poor police investigation rather than proof of innocence. High-profile cases, including the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts, the 2006 Malegaon blasts, the Aurangabad Arms case, and the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, highlight Jamiat’s legal interventions on behalf of terrorists.
Conclusion
The judgment delivered by the special NIA court in the Chandan Gupta murder case is not only a milestone in ensuring accountability for communal violence but also a significant commentary on the disruptive role of certain NGOs and individuals like Teesta Setalvad. The court exposed how organisations such as Citizens for Justice and Peace, led by Setalvad, manipulated narratives to exert undue influence on judicial processes and erode public trust. By raising concerns over their biased reports, dubious funding, and communal advocacy, the court underscored the critical need to prevent such entities from undermining justice. This verdict reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to impartiality and strengthens the call for transparency in the role of NGOs in sensitive legal matters.
