Could police enter a mosque and use its microphone to issue an appeal to the people, Muslims and non-Muslims, to stay away from a public programme or protest against the anti-people policies of the government, which is permitted by the Constitution of India? This has become a matter of public debate in India and, even abroad, after police officers entered two mosques in Delhi, grabbed the public address system of the mosques, and threatened people with consequences if they participated in October 10 demonstrations at Jantar Mantar convened by the Cockroach Janata Party to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, who is accused of manipulating the voters’ list and deleting the names of 13 crore voters from electoral lists, helping the BJP to win the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and the subsequent assembly elections in West Bengal, Delhi, Maharashtra and other states.
The police did not remain content with its own appeal to the people. It even asked the Imams of the two mosques to issue their separate appeals to use their influence over the people not to go to the protest site or any other venue of the protest.
This was the first-ever incident in the history of Independent India where mosque amplifiers were used by the police to keep people from public protests and demonstrations that are allowed in India under the Constitution. Such an incident had not happened even during the infamous Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi for 18 months from 1975 to 1977. Indira Gandhi’s Emergency is the most-cited incident in India whenever we speak of the suspension of fundamental rights. But the atrocities during the Indira’s Emergency fade away in comparison to the attack on the fundamental rights of citizens ever since Narendra Modi became Prime Minister in May 2014.
The matter is quite sensitive and assumes significance because the mosque microphone is used for three purposes only. First, to give a call for Azaan (announcing the timing of the prayer and calling the faithful for Salah or Namaz five times a day), announcement for a missing person (boy or girl, irrespective of their religion), and sometimes to announce the death of some prominent persons of the locality. But, in more than 99 percent of the cases, the microphone is used for Azaan only. Barring such uses, the microphone is not used for any other purpose. This is the situation all over India as far as use of the mosque microphone is concerned.
No one will have an objection to the police using the mosque microphone if the purpose is to maintain law and order, or to prevent the occurrence of any violence and warn the rioters or miscreants from taking the law into their own hands. If the microphone is used for this purpose, the police would be fully justified. But the issue is that the police used the microphone to deprive the people of their democratic rights to peaceful protest guaranteed under the Constitution.
Why Did Police Choose Only Mosques for Its Announcement?
But why did the police choose only the mosque for its announcement asking people to abstain from joining the October 10 protest? There are microphones installed in temples and Gurudwaras nearby the mosque. But it could not gather the courage to go there. Why? The answer is that Muslims have become a vulnerable community under the BJP rule, and any opposition to the police demand might have resulted in action against the mosque and its management. Already, several dozens of mosques have been demolished by the police and administration on the pretext of them being built on encroachments and government land. Who knows that the police could have manufactured a similar allegation against these mosques and possibly harmed them by pulling their structures partially or fully. In such a situation, when even the intervention of the court is not of much use, not only the mosque functionaries but anybody would acquiesce to the police demand without any argument. So, the mosque Imams had no option but to accept the police diktat when there was no option of negotiation.
Police must know that a mosque is a place of worship and spiritual reflection. Its premises or equipment cannot be used by the state or police to scare people from lawful activities simply because those activities clash with the wishes of the government or the party in power. Police personnel are also members of society, believing in one or the other religion, and hence, must be sensitive to the religious feelings of citizens, irrespective of their faith.
And why was the police scared that it went to the mosque and warned through amplifiers of the consequences if they attend the CJP-sponsored protest? Do only Muslims participate in CJP-led protests? There are other communities as well whose members outnumber the Muslims in CJP’s protests because their share of the population is higher than that of Muslims, not only in Delhi but in all the states, except the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Muslims, along with their counterparts of other faiths, simply took part in all secular agitations and protests, such as over the demand for the resignation of former Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. Muslim youths also made arrangements for food for the protesters in June and July this year when the CJP agitated for Pradhan’s ouster over the issue of leakage of NEET exam papers for medical entrance.
Muslims for the Good of Humanity
While participation of Muslims in CJP’s June-July agitation was impromptu, Muslim leaders like former Rajya Sabha MP Mohammed Adeeb and spiritual leader Sajjad Nomani had given a call for participating in the agitation for removal of Gyanesh Kumar. Even religious organisations like Jamaat-e-Islami Hind and Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, which are non-political, have also extended their support to the CJP’s peaceful agitation because the issue is much larger and more serious in nature than that of the demand for removal of a minister. The issue is the protection of the Constitution, democracy, secularism, independence of the judiciary, legislature and the rule of law, and safeguarding the nation from being converted into a dictatorship and authoritarianism. Muslim youths, who had taken part in every agitation to protect democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law, including during the 1975 Emergency, could not remain silent spectators when youths from other communities were at the frontline in the streets and bearing the brunt of the police action. Muslims who have been assigned a divine mission by the Holy Qur’an to work for the good of entire humanity cannot afford to shirk their responsibility of being Khair-e-Ummah and Ukhrijat lil-nas, meaning a community raised for the good of humanity. It was this mission assigned to them in the Qur’an that Muslims stood up against the British, along with Hindus and other communities, and Muslims’ sacrifices surpass those of any other community in the struggle for freedom of India from the British slavery. One finds their mention in golden letters in the books about the struggle for India’s freedom.
Could a community with such a glorious history of sacrifice to support the principles of law, justice, and the values of freedom, justice, and protecting vulnerable people individually and collectively be kept aloof? History will never pardon a community who keep itself within the confines of its houses when its counterparts from other communities are on the battlefield to fight for universal values of freedom, justice, law, brotherhood, and harmony that are being trampled upon by the government of the day. That is why Muslims chose to participate wholeheartedly in both the agitations led by CJP: the June-July 2026 stir to demand resignation of Pradhan and the current ongoing agitation seeking resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
One thing that needs to be noted is that Muslim leadership, spiritual and political, did not give the call for participation in the CJP’s and Opposition parties’ agitation from mosques’ amplifiers, nor in the Friday sermons from the pulpit of the mosque, keeping in view the sanctity of the mosque and also because the issues for which the CJP and Opposition’s mobilisation is taking place involve people from all religious communities. It may have given a different impression to the ruling party and the government if the mosque were involved in the political parties’ campaign.
What Police Did is Not Acceptable in Democracy
So, what the police did is not acceptable in any democratic society, not only in India, where the government is gradually moving towards dictatorship, though the Constitution is still in force and has not been suspended. Though the party in power cares the least about Constitutional law and goes about its wishes, violating the law and even the directives of the court, as it happened on October 10 when it suspended more than 250 trains from reaching Delhi, besides shutting down Delhi’s 50 metro rail stations, to prevent people from going to the protest site, despite Supreme Court orders not to do anything that obstructs the holding of the protest and movement of the people from one place to another. The government also suspended mobile internet services in a several-kilometre radius of the Jantar Mantar to ensure that news of the protest does not become viral. The police also detained journalists despite Supreme Court orders to allow media persons to carry out their official duties. The government and Delhi police’s action indicates that the BJP government at the Centre and the Delhi police do not listen even to the orders of the highest court of the land. This is a very dangerous situation.
Political activist and commentator Yogendra Yadav criticised Chief Justice of India Surya Kant when the latter refused to meet Opposition leaders led by Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge when they took a delegation to the Supreme Court to brief the top judge of the country about how the government had violated its orders. Making clear that it is not the job of the Chief Justice to meet government officers and Opposition leaders. But this is the mandate for the CJI during normal times. But the country is now passing through an unprecedented crisis, and that is why the Opposition leaders went to meet him. To the CJI’s response that you come with a petition and the court will hear.
Yadav asks: “Several petitions have been filed, and what have you(CJI) done? The government made appointments of the CEC and two Election Commissioners against the Supreme Court’s directions. Did the SC stop the government? Names of crores of voters were deleted from the voters’ list with your knowledge. Did you stop it from happening? It was because of your order that 27 lakh voters’ names were removed in Bihar. What did the SC do? You (Supreme Court) simply said: You can exercise your right to vote in the next election. A youth is rotting in jail for six years. You can neither allow his trial nor can you order his bail. The Executive is openly violating your (SC) order. You ordered not to cancel trains. But 250 trains were cancelled. Even a constable of the Delhi police does not bother about your orders. I don’t know what your compulsions are for remaining silent on it. You may feel bad about my words. I also feel bad. Opposition parties and other leaders wanted to meet you to strengthen your hands so that you can read that book, which is called the Constitution of India, so that you can establish the Supremacy of the Constitution. We had come to transform your constraints into strengths.”
The Constitution of India on Holding Peaceful Protest
Now, I come to the core issue. What does the Constitution of India say about holding a democratic and peaceful protest against the government policies and anti-people actions? Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peacefully and without arms. These freedoms are essential to democratic life. They enable citizens to question public institutions, challenge government decisions, expose alleged wrongdoing and demand accountability from those who exercise power. So, what the CJP leaders had announced to do on October 10 was in consonance with the above two Articles of the Constitution. Hence, the police had no right to threaten the people (read Muslims) with harmful consequences if they participated in the CJP’s protest. It was their constitutional right. Yes, the police could have prevented them if the participants were found carrying arms or creating disturbances on the day of the protest.
If viewed in entirety, what the police did through mosque in Old Delhi suggested that it acted as a part of the political party in power which was totally unconstitutional. To prevent people from the protest is not the mandate given to the police as protest is a fundamental democratic and Constitutional right in a democracy.
In several cases, particularly in Himat La K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police (1973) concerning authority of the state to regulate public meetings and Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), concerning demonstrations at Jantar Mantar, the Supreme Court clearly said that the state cannot exercise arbitrary control over fundamental rights like holding demonstrations.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) clearly says that restrictions imposed in the name of public order cannot be used to suppress legitimate democratic expression. Preventive action must be justified by the circumstances and remain proportionate to the threat it seeks to address.
Deducing from this, it becomes clear that the police must maintain order, but they cannot discourage or stop people from participating in democratic dissent on the pretext of regulating public meetings or maintaining order. But as Yogendra Yadav apologetically said that the Supreme Court could not enforce its own orders due to certain constraints and executive openly violated the high court, Muslims in such a situation could not have physically stopped police from using mosques’ amplifiers.
Yet, Muslims participation in October 10 protests and their continued participation in subsequent protests indicates Muslims are ready to fulfil their responsibility for protection of the Constitution, democracy, secularism, rule of law, humanism, justice, harmony, mutual brotherhood, standing shoulder to shoulder with other communities.