New Delhi: Five years after the Delhi Police booked several Indians associated with the Tablighi Jamaat for disobeying prohibitory orders issued during COVID-19 lockdown in March-April 2020, limiting a religious congregation to 50, the Delhi High Court in a strongly-worded judgment quashed 16 FIRs and subsequent proceedings initiated in the cases.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, who heard a series of petitions, held Thursday that no prima facie offence was made out under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 or the Disaster Management Act, 2005—the three laws under which 70 persons were booked in these 16 FIRs.
The court emphasized that the petitioners’ continued stay in the mosques did not amount to a violation of prohibitory orders and could not be interpreted as criminal conduct.
The Tablighi Jamaat, an Islamic self-reformatory movement, holds an annual congregation at its global headquarters in Nizamuddin Markaz, New Delhi. The 2020 event had been planned well in advance and took place in early March—before COVID-19 had been declared a pandemic.
On 11 March, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared COVID-19 a pandemic. Subsequently, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare suspended most visas until 15 April of that year.
On 13 March, the Delhi government invoked powers under the Delhi Epidemic Diseases, COVID-19 Regulations, 2020, to restrict gatherings to 200 persons. However, religious congregations were only specifically capped to 50 persons on 16 March.
A “Janta Curfew” was announced for 22 March, followed by a nationwide lockdown from 25 March for 21 days, eventually extended until 31 May.
Additionally, an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was issued on 24 March by the ACP, Darya Ganj sub-division, prohibiting public gatherings of all kinds.
Also Read: No goat or buffalo meat for biryani—Tablighi Jamaat treads with caution ahead of Nuh congregation
Series of FIRs and legal proceedings
The Delhi Police Crime Branch registered an FIR on 31 March, 2020, against alleged Tablighi Jamaat organisers and Indian nationals under various IPC sections including 188, 269, 270, 271, and 120B, along with Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act and Sections 51/58 of the Disaster Management Act.
Other FIRs followed, lodged at Chandni Mahal, Sarai Rohilla, and Krishna Nagar police stations between 31 March and 2 April. These FIRs were against individuals allegedly sheltering foreign nationals in homes or mosques.
On 2 April, 2020, the Ministry of Health “unilaterally and arbitrarily” blacklisted 960 foreign nationals, directing legal action under the Foreigners Act and Disaster Management Act. Standard Operating Procedure (SOPs) were issued for their deportation if asymptomatic and “in order to facilitate the deportation of the asymptomatic foreign nationals stranded in India, in chartered flights to be arranged by concerned Foreign Government in consultation with the Ministry of Civil Aviation”.
Between 9 and 28 May, 955 foreign nationals were released from quarantine, and 48 chargesheets and 11 supplementary chargesheets were filed against them. From July-August, 193 foreign nationals named in 28 FIRs approached the court seeking quashing.
On 24 August, the Delhi High Court transferred these cases to the chief metropolitan magistrate, South-East district, Saket Courts.
The same day, eight foreign nationals were discharged. A revision by the State was dismissed in November 2020, and on 15 December, 36 foreign nationals were acquitted. The present petitioners—Indian nationals—argued that the charges were based on “embellishments and exaggerations,” violating their personal liberty.
They contended they were “stranded inside the Masjid” due to the lockdown and had no option but to stay there.
Delhi HC’s reasoning and meticulous scrutiny
Justice Krishna upheld the high court’s power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings even post-chargesheet, citing various Supreme Court precedents. The Court reiterated this power serves a “salutary public purpose” to prevent judicial proceedings from becoming a “weapon of harassment or persecution”.
The court also took into account the twin tests for exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and said that they “were either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”.
For Section 188 IPC (disobedience to public servant’s order), the court found that Section 144 order was not announced through a gazette notification and, hence, not properly promulgated. Moreover, it was not within the petitioners’ knowledge since it was never published or served to the petitioners. “There is no averment whatsoever to show that any information was actually conveyed to the petitioners,” said the court.
Moreover, the congregation occurred before the pandemic was declared, and the petitioners’ continued presence was due to the lockdown—not a willful violation. The court added that stepping out would have violated lockdown rules, and there was no indication that any petitioner engaged in prohibited group activities after 24 March, 2020.
There was also “no whisper” in the chargesheets that any petitioner was COVID-positive or stepped out of the Markaz post-lockdown.
The absence of allegations that they obstructed surveillance or ignored official directions further weakened the prosecution’s case.
Sections 269 and 270 IPC relate to negligent and malignant acts likely to spread a dangerous disease. The court stated that for these to apply, the prosecution had to prove the accused was infected, knew of their infection, and acted with mens rea to spread the disease. It also said there was no evidence of infection, intent, or unlawful movement.
Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act penalises disobedience of lawful orders. Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act targets obstruction of officials or non-compliance. The court found no such acts by the petitioners. Since no offences were made out under either Act, the FIRs were liable to be quashed.
The court held that no prima facie case was made out under any of the invoked provisions. It noted that similar cases across India during the pandemic had resulted in acquittals or discharges. Continuing these proceedings, it said, would “amount to an abuse of the process and also is not in the interest of justice,” citing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark case State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, which relates to when and how criminal law should be set in motion.
“All the cases that were registered during the COVID-19 period, under the aforesaid sections before various courts across the country have ended either in acquittal or discharge of the accused persons,” the judgment concluded. Accordingly, all chargesheets and related proceedings were quashed and the petitioners discharged.
Speaking to ThePrint, Advocate Ashima Mandla appearing for the petitioners said, “The handling of the Tablighi Jamaat incident clearly reflects a concerning degree of policy apathy. What we witnessed was not a consistent public health response, but rather a selective and disproportionate focus on one group, which unfortunately gave rise to communal stigmatization.
“The authorities failed to act promptly, did not ensure proper coordination, and resorted to punitive measures against many individuals—both domestic and foreign—without adequate legal basis.” Such an approach, she added, undermined constitutional principles of equality and fairness, and also weakened public confidence in the integrity of our pandemic governance.
This is an updated version of the report
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: How Tablighi Jamaat was born from Mewat’s ‘drinking Muslims who couldn’t even read namaz’