Devanshi Batra, TwoCircles.net
New Delhi: On a tranquil Sunday morning, Zakir Ali Tyagi, an independent journalist, was roused from slumber by the persistent ringing of his phone — a fellow journalist extending congratulations for a newly lodged FIR against him. This was not an unfamiliar scenario for Ali; in fact, such incidents had become so commonplace that his colleagues now greeted them with congratulations rather than expressions of concern.
The previous day, Uttar Pradesh Police had filed charges against two independent journalists, Zakir Ali Tyagi and Wasim Akram Tyagi, along with three others—Asif Rana, Saif Allahbadi, and Ahmad Raza Khan. They were accused of sharing and allegedly misrepresenting on social media the lynching of a Muslim man in Shamli district.
A day later, on Sunday, another First Information Report (FIR) was lodged at the Thana Bhawan police station in Shamli against a Bihar-based YouTube channel. This channel, managed by Sadaf Kamran, a journalist from Bihar with over 300,000 subscribers, had covered the same lynching incident.
On July 5, Zakir Ali Tyagi and Wasim Akram Tyagi had posted on X (formerly Twitter) about the tragic death of Firoz Qureshi in a mob lynching incident in Shamli district. Firoz Qureshi had visited the Ganga Aryanagar locality of Jalalabad town, where he was viciously attacked by individuals identified as Pinky, Pankaj Rajendra, and others. Despite attempts to rescue him, he tragically succumbed to his injuries.
Zakir also shared a photo of the family’s complaint, which indicated that the case was filed under Section 105 of the Indian Penal Code, pertaining to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Sadaf Kamran, a journalist based in Bihar who operates the YouTube channel ‘Hindustani Media,’ explained, “Firoz Qureshi’s brother penned a letter to the police, and I included it in my video, presenting the family’s account. I also referenced tweets from journalists and others. There was no fabrication or falsehood on our part. Our predicament arose simply because we used the term ‘mob lynching.’ Additionally, I discussed the unchecked rise in mob lynching incidents targeting Muslims, an issue the government tends to overlook. While some may perceive this as anti-Hindu, I view it as anti-hate.”
Firoz is the latest victim in a series of Muslims killed by mobs since the new government took office on June 4.
“Lynching cases targeting Muslims are on the rise for a disturbing reason. Lynchers believe they will be celebrated, face no consequences, and even receive protection. There have been instances where statues were erected and political party tickets awarded to these individuals, incentivizing further violence,” stated Zakir Ali Tyagi.
Wasim Akram Tyagi, a DIP-accredited journalist with approximately 15 years of experience, remarked, “Efforts to normalize hate crimes like mob lynching through retaliatory cases undermine human rights. If people fear being lynched anywhere, can we truly consider this freedom?”
The investigation into Zakir Ali Tyagi, Wasim Akram Tyagi, and three others began on July 6 following a complaint filed by Sub-Inspector Manendra Kumar at Thana Bhawan police station, detailed in an FIR reviewed by twocircles.net.
Zakir Ali Tyagi questioned, “How can we expect fairness when the complainant is from the police itself?”
“In the initial stages, Shamli police stated that Firoz was beaten to death. ASP Santosh Kumar’s statement in Amar Ujala newspaper confirmed this. However, their stance later changed, appearing to protect the accused,” added Wasim Akram Tyagi.
According to the police, the deceased entered the accused’s residence inebriated.
Wasim highlighted a recurring pattern in lynching cases, stating, “Following a lynching or hate crime, there is often an attempt to malign the character of the deceased. The incident is distorted to portray the victim as a criminal, labelling them as thieves or drunkards, etc. This narrative serves to justify the lynching, creating public sentiment that the victim deserved it.”
The police also stated that Firoz’s killing did not constitute a case of mob lynching and that his injuries were not the cause of death. However, the family has yet to see the post-mortem report, and the exact cause of death remains undisclosed.
“Police accuse us of spreading misinformation despite clarifying the cause of death. Shamli Police tweeted on July 6 that postmortem results indicated the death was not due to a beating. However, I uploaded the video on July 5, prior to this information. How could I have known beforehand?” said Sadaf Kamran.
“The police are withholding the cause of death. If it’s not due to a beating, then what caused it? Why haven’t they disclosed this information? Even the family hasn’t received the post-mortem report,” he added.
The six individuals booked are accused of inciting religious enmity through “malicious” posts on social media platform X (previously Twitter), describing Firoz’s death as a case of mob lynching. While the two journalists wrote and posted tweets, the other three individuals merely shared Zakir Tyagi’s post. The other three individuals have since deactivated their accounts.
All six face charges under Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to promoting enmity between groups and carries a penalty of up to three years in prison, a fine, or both, and Section 353, which deals with statements causing public mischief, punishable by up to three years in prison, with or without a fine.
Under the new law, lynching is defined as “when a group of five or more persons acting in concert commits murder”. This technical definition has raised concerns among journalists who fear that police may manipulate it. Wasim expressed disappointment, questioning whether incidents involving 2 or 3 people attacking someone would not be considered lynching or murder.
“The BNS has many loopholes that will allow lynchers to evade punishment. What about instances where 2 or 3 people lynch someone? Would that not be considered lynching or murder?” asked Wasim with indignation.
“The BNS is not the first law to be misused. Previous laws like UAPA, NSA, Sedition, and PSA have all been misused against those who speak out. Now, BNS has joined that list,” remarked Zakir.
“The new criminal law poses challenges for journalists due to numerous loopholes, indicating selective enforcement. In Uttar Pradesh, the number of FIRs against journalists is increasing. India’s press freedom index speaks volumes,” added Sadaf.
Media organizations, opposition leaders, journalists, and legal experts have criticized the police actions against the journalists, condemning it as an assault on Freedom of Expression. India ranks 159th out of 180 countries in the 2024 World Press Freedom Index, released by Reporters Without Borders (RSF).
In a statement, DIGIPUB, a coalition of more than 90 digital media outlets and independent journalists, described the filing of FIRs against these journalists as “a serious overreach and misuse of criminal laws and an attack on press freedom”. The Press Club of India later endorsed DIGIPUB’s statement.
“Do you know why this happened? It’s to ensure that journalists like us remain silent and turn a blind eye, allowing atrocities against Muslims to persist under the guise of religion. This is an assault on both press freedom and human rights,” said Wasim.
Zakir pointed out, “Local media channels in Shamli reported on this incident too, but they weren’t booked because they belong to a particular religion. We were targeted because, firstly, we are Muslims, and secondly, we are journalists. Being a ‘Muslim journalist’ is considered a crime.”
“The government aims to suppress the documentation of such cases. Victims of lynching are turned into accused, and journalists who speak out are targeted with legal action. They cannot tolerate journalists who criticize the government and expose its failures,” he added.
Wasim, Zakir, and Kamran affirmed their commitment to continue reporting on issues that require attention. Currently, all the accused are preparing to apply for anticipatory bail. Zakir also indicated his intention to challenge the FIR in both the High Court and Supreme Court.