Allahabad: The incendiary statement “Gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saza, sar tan se juda” (the only penalty for insulting the prophet is beheading) was declared a blatant attack on India’s legal authority, sovereignty, and unity by the Allahabad High Court in a scathing ruling. Because it incites armed insurrection, it is punished under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which targets activities that jeopardize national integrity, according to Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal’s ruling. The court denied accused Rihan bail, citing “sufficient material” that demonstrated his involvement in an illegal assembly that caused damage to cars and injuries to police.

Chaos in Bareilly: 500-person crowd fights with police
On May 26, when Maulana Taukir Raza, head of the Ittefaq Minnat Council, organized 500 people, the flashpoint broke out in Biharipur, Bareilly. Despite the police’s demands to disperse, the mob continued to scream the phrase. Violence broke out; both private and public cars were damaged, and police officers were hurt. Charges were brought against seven rioters, including bail-seeker Rihan, who was detained on the scene. The judge said that “this is nothing but an offence against the State,” categorically refusing bail.

The court makes a clear difference between hate speech and religious chants.
Justice Deshwal distinguished between polarizing threats and religious shouts. The Sikhs’ “Jo bole so nihaal, Sat Sri Akal” (truth is eternal), Muslims’ “Nara-e-Takbir, Allahu Akbar” (God is greatest), and Hindus’ “Jai Shree Ram” and “Har Har Mahadev” are examples of peaceful religious declarations that are not offensive until they are used as weapons to threaten others. The judge emphasized: “Raising devotional calls is fine- until maliciously used against other faiths.”

Lack of Quranic roots: The slogan violates the fundamental principles of Islam
“It finds no trace in the Quran or any Islamic text,” the bench said, exposing the slogan’s lack of theological approval despite its widespread usage by some Muslims who were ignorant of its seriousness. The court said that the cry is a perversion that encourages anarchy and that it goes against Islam’s core values of compassion, citing Prophet Muhammad’s examples of kindness, such as safeguarding non-Muslims and forgiving enemies.