AhlulBayt News Agency: In awarding death penalty to prime accused Mohammad Sarfaraz and life imprisonment to nine others in the 2024 Bahraich violence case in Uttar Pradesh, the presiding judge at a local court cited Manusmriti — an ancient Hindu text long criticised for upholding caste hierarchy.
Thursday’s ruling has drawn widespread scrutiny for citing a shlok (verse) from the Manusmriti to justify the severity of punishment. The ruling has raised further concerns because the judgment also references torture claims that police had publicly dismissed last year as baseless rumours.
Additional Sessions Judge Pawan Kumar Sharma sentenced Sarfaraz to death and imposed rigorous life imprisonment on nine others for the killing of 28-year-old Ram Gopal Mishra during communal unrest in Bahraich on October 13, 2024.
The 142-page judgment, while describing the crime as “extremely heinous,” quoted Manusmriti to underline the philosophical basis of punishment:
“Danḍa śāsti prajāḥ sarvā, danḍa evābhirakṣati.
Danḍa supṭeṣu jāgarti, danḍa dharm avidurvaḍhā.”
Explaining the reference, the court stated that punishment is essential for maintaining social order and ensuring adherence to Rajdharma—the duties of the state. It observed that fear of punishment deters individuals from deviating from moral and social responsibilities, and that protecting life and property remains a fundamental obligation of governance.
The court’s language and reasoning have since drawn attention from legal and human rights experts, who say the judgment departs from established criminal-law standards.
Mishra, who was part of a Hindutva procession, had climbed onto the roof of a Muslim shopkeeper during the rally, removed green flags and waved a saffron flag shortly before he was fatally shot. His death sparked immediate political tensions, accompanied by social-media claims that he was tortured, electrocuted and mutilated. Within days, Bahraich police publicly refuted those allegations, stating that medical examinations confirmed his death was caused by bullet injuries alone.
Despite the police clarification, portions of the court’s verdict appear to treat those same torture allegations as credible. This contradiction has alarmed several journalists and legal commentators, who say the court’s reliance on information that police had already ruled out raises significant concerns about the evidentiary basis of the sentencing.
Journalist Narendra Pratap remarked that the judgment seemed to incorporate “the very rumour the police themselves rejected,” a move he said risked undermining confidence in the judicial process.
The judge’s invocation of Manusmriti has added another layer of controversy. The text’s centrality to Brahminical orthodoxy has led to longstanding opposition, culminating in Dr. B R Ambedkar’s burning it in 1927.
Analysts note that referencing such a text in a contemporary criminal judgment is highly unusual and potentially at odds with constitutional principles of equality and secular governance.
Legal experts say the combination of citing a caste-based religious text and incorporating unverified torture claims could become a central issue during appeal proceedings.
They argue that these elements may raise questions about whether the verdict was shaped by ideological considerations rather than the evidentiary record presented in court.
Your Comment