'Sar Tan Se Juda' Slogan Challenges India's Sovereignty; Can't Equate It With 'Allahu-Akbar', 'Jai Shri Ram': Allahabad High Court
Rejecting the bail plea of Maulana Taukir Raza Khan in connection with the September 2025 Bareilly violence case, the Allahabad High Court today observed that the slogan "Gustakh-e-Nabi Ke Ek Hi Saja, Sar Tan Se Juda, Sar Tan Se Juda" cannot be equated with religious slogans such as "Nara-e-Takbir, Allahu-Akbar", "Jo Bole So Nihal Sat Sri Akal", "Jai Shri Ram" or "Har Har Mahadev".
A bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava observed that while these slogans express respect to the concerned God or Guru, the "Sar Tan Se Juda" slogan was "nothing but a challenge to the authority of law as also to the sovereignty and integrity of India" and incited people to "an arm rebellion which is punishable under the law".
The Court accordingly declined to grant bail to Raza, noting that it was not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage.
Raza is facing a 2025 Bareilly FIR in connection with the violence that occurred on September 26, 2025. He had been in jail since September 27, 2025.
According to the prosecution's case, a call had been given for members of the Muslim community to assemble at the Islamia Inter College grounds to protest against alleged atrocities and false cases against them.
The local administration subsequently imposed an order under Section 163 BNSS, prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons at a public place.
The State alleged that, despite the prohibition, approximately 00-250 people marched towards the Islamia Inter College grounds. When police attempted to stop them, the crowd allegedly raised the "Sar Tan Se Juda" slogan, pelted stones and petrol bombs and fired at the police party, resulting in injuries to several police personnel and destruction of public property.
The State had also described Raza as the "King-pin and Mastermind" of the Bareilly riots.
It was Raza's case that he was not involved in its mobilization or participation, as he had been placed under house arrest around 10 AM on September 26 and was therefore not present at the place of occurrence.
It was argued that he had neither delivered a speech nor issued any appeal that could be construed as inciting violence, disorder or breach of public peace.
The High Court also recorded that Raza was not present at the place of the incident and was confined at the house of co-accused Farhat Ali.
However, the Court noted that the applicant had called upon members of the Muslim community to assemble at Islamia Inter College after Friday prayers to protest against Government action and submit a memorandum to the President of India through the District Magistrate, Bareilly.
While considering the allegations against Raza, the High Court specifically addressed the nature of the "Sar Tan Se Juda" slogan. The Court said:
"The said slogan cannot be equated to other slogans like 'Nara-e-Takbir, Allahu-Akbar', 'Jo Bole So Nihal Sat Sri Akal', or for that matter 'Jai Shri Ram' or 'Har Har Mahadev'."
The Court explained that these other slogans express respect for the concerned God or Guru. In contrast, it remarked that the "Sar Tan Se Juda" slogan is "nothing but a challenge to the authority of law as also to the sovereignty and integrity of India and incites the people for an arm rebellion which is punishable under the law".
The Court noted that the call for the gathering had been made without permission from the local administration for such a large assembly.
Although the applicant claimed that the call had subsequently been canceled after permission was denied and Section 163 BNSS was imposed, the Court noted that members of the community nevertheless marched towards the Islamia grounds.
When police personnel prevented them, the crowd allegedly indulged in rioting and destruction of public property, causing injuries to police personnel, the bench further noted.
It also observed that the applicant's conduct after the incident, giving a speech thanking the masses for responding to his call and applauding their acts, "cannot also be approved of". The bail application was consequently rejected.
Case title - Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 667
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 667