Delhi HC quashes 16 FIRs against 70 Indian Muslims who sheltered foreign Tablighi Jamaat members during Covid-19 outbreak: Read what were the charges and what the court said

On the 18^th of July 2025, the Delhi High Court quashed 16 FIRs filed against 70 Indian citizens accused of sheltering 190 foreign members of the Tablighi Jamaat. The foreign nationals came to Delhi to attend the congregation at Nizamuddin Markaz in 2020 during Covid outbreak.

The accused persons were booked under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Epidemic Diseases Act, the Disaster Management Act and the Foreigners Act. The Tablighi Jamaat congregation was an early epicentre of COVID-19 outbreak in the country, as members from various states had attended the event and returned to their places carrying the virus after they were infected at the event.

Hearing a batch of petitions moved by advocate Ashima Mandla, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said, “Chargesheets quashed.” The verdict in this case was reserved in April this year, and the same was pronounced on 17^th July.

The case, associated with the Tablighi Jamaat gathering, was under legal examination due to its alleged impact on public health and its adherence to regulatory guidelines during the pandemic.

Representing the 70 Indian nationals, advocate Ashima Mandla earlier placed on record a compilation of judgements passed by other courts in relation to the incident. Advocate Mandakini Singh also appeared on behalf of the Petitioners.

The accused named in the matter were identified as Mohammad Anwar, Mohd. Tayyab, Sadar Irfan, Muktara, Mohd. Tahir, Shamim, Akhtar, Taijumal Islam, Attar Rehman, Majid Miyan, Basheer Ali, Mohd. Bilal Sheikh, Niyauddin Parveen Khan, Noor Bano Nashreen, Shahin Bee, Rubina Rao, Hussain, Mohd, Aslam, Mohd. Umar, Shahroz Anwar, Noor Ahmed, among others.

In April this year, the bench of Justice Neena Bansal reserved the judgement in a batch matter of 16 FIRs involving 70 Indian nationals associated with Tablighi Jamaat who were chargesheeted under sections 188/269/270/120-B IPC for housing foreign nationals in different masjids during the Covid-19 outbreak between March 24, 2020 and March 30, 2020.

The 195 foreign nationals who were housed by these Indian nationals were also named in the FIR; however, in most chargesheets, they were not chargesheeted or cognisance refused by the Trial Court, on principles of double jeopardy, as the same set of foreign nationals were chargesheeted for the same set of offences and had entered plea bargaining for purposes of repatriation or were discharged in an FIR.

What the Delhi High Court said in its judgement

The defence contended that FIRs against the accused persons be quashed on the grounds that allegations levelled against Indian Nationals in the aforesaid FIRs are prima facie “embellishments and exaggerations” which stare in the face of the record and are an abuse of the process of criminal law.

The petitioners further argued against allegations made against them that they were allegedly housed at Masjid Ek Minar, Haveli Kallu Khawas, Chitli Qabar, Delhi, for some time and remained housed till intervention by the Police officials on 01.04.2020. It is asserted that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIRs are bereft of legality as there are no specific allegations or evidence qua Petitioners for hosting or participating in a social/cultural/religious gathering which was essentially barred under Section 144 Cr.P.C.

The petitioners also submitted that a total ban on movement, i.e. Janta Curfew, was imposed on 22.03.2020, while Section 144 was imposed on 24.03.202,0, and a complete nationwide Lockdown was directed w.e.f. 25.03.2020, rendering the Petitioners remediless who had no recourse but to continue staying inside the Masjid, until taken into Institutional quarantine. The Petitioners, therefore, cannot be charged under

Section 188 IPC for merely residing in a mosque, and the charges are liable to be quashed. They also disputed the offence under Section 188 IPC, saying that for taking cognisance of an offence under Section 188 IPC, a written complaint of the Public Servant whose order has been contravened is mandatory. The prosecution for the offence under Section 188 IPC cannot be initiated based on the Chargesheet filed by the Police.

In addition, the petitioners argued that slapping IPC section 269 against the accused was inappropriate as no offence under this Section has been made out against the Petitioners. They further claimed that the addition of this section has fuelled prejudice and stigmatisation of the accused persons.

The court discussed the maintainability of the petition for quashing of the FIRs against the accused persons. After detailing the grounds for deeming the plea maintainable, the court delved into the sustainability of section 188 IPC in the Absence of Complaint by competent authority.

While the petitioners contended that the entire investigations have been undertaken by the Police without there being any complaint and thus be set aside, the prosecution alleged violation of order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. dated 24.03.2020 promulgated by ACPs of Darya Ganj, Sarai Rohilla and Krishna Nagar.

Regarding this the court said, “the record shows that a Complaint by the competent public officer had been made to the Court along with the Chargesheet and the cognizance has been taken on the basis of that Complaint. It cannot be said that there was no compliance of Section 195 Cr.P.C. in the present cases.”

The court highlighted that as per section 188 IPC, the Notification of the public servant must be in the actual knowledge of the person required him to do or abstain from doing some act. Acquiring or gaining of such knowledge is a pre-requisite. Any proof of general Notification promulgated by a public servant, would not satisfy the requirement. The court pointed out that the promulgation of a notification needs to be carried out by the issuing authority, although the law does not prescribe any specific mode to make the order known publicly and openly.

In the present case, the court said that it is not the case of the respondents that the Janta Curfew order was served on the petitioners by whatever means or was affixed on the premises or was gazetted on the relevant date.

The single judge bench noted that the State’s assertion that the requisite knowledge must be attributed to the petitioners, because the order was published in some newspapers, TV channels and social websites, etc, does not meet the requirement of promulgation since there is no averment that the newspapers/handbills were received by the Petitioner.

“There is no averment whatsoever to show that any information was actually conveyed to the Petitioners,” the court noted, adding that had there been any evidence of the Notification being published in the public media, there may have been a presumption of knowledge to the persons residing in the house, but there is no evidence to this effect as well.

While the court’s remarks suggest that there is no evidence of the notification being published in the public media, the same was widely reported in the media at that time.

The question here arises as to how the authorities would have ensured that everyone was informed about the order imposing a total ban on movement. By personally visiting each and every person’s residence or visiting the Markaz in this case? At a time when Covid-related news and updates dominated local or national television news headlines, digital media and social media discourse, is it really unlikely that the most of the people including the accused persons who must have had access to their mobile phones, if not television or newspapers, remained unaware of the notification issued under Section 144 Cr.P.C?

The Delhi High Court further observed that there is no evidence to show that the Tablighi Jamaat congregation, which was planned way before the outbreak of Covid, was held after the promulgation of the notification under Section 144.

“Firstly and foremost, there is nothing on record to show that they had congregated after the promulgation of the Notification under Section 144 Cr.P.C. These Petitioners were already present in the Markaz and after the imposition of the complete lockdown, there was no way possible for them to have dispersed; rather their stepping out of the houses would have been violation of the complete lockdown and also of the potential of spreading of commutable disease of COVID-19,” the court said, adding the accused persons were “helpless people, who got confined on account of lockdown.”

The court also remarked that the chargesheet filed by the Delhi Police does not make any mention of any of the accused persons being found Covid-19 positive or having stepped out of the Markaz after 24^th March 2020.

“There is not a whisper in the entire Chargesheet that any of these petitioners were found COVID-19 positive or that they had stepped out of the Markaz after 24.03.2020 or that they were likely to spread COVID-19. Also, there is not a single averment of them having not rendered any assistance to the surveillance personnel,” the court said.

Moreover, the court said that even if it is assumed that there was “due promulgation” of the notification under section 144, “no violation of any of the activities prohibited by the Notification has been made out in the entire chargesheet.”

“It is therefore, held that the cognizance for the offence under Section 188 IPC is bad as no prima facie case is made out and the Petitioners are entitled to be discharged under Section 188 IPC,” the court said.

Quashing the charges under IPC sections 269 and 270, the court observed that the prosecution did not produce any material evidence to prove that the accused had indulged in any act which contributed to the spread of Covid. “No material was produced in the chargesheet and no evidence was placed on record to substantiate the fulfilment of ingredients of Sections 269 and 270 IPC… Even if all the evidence as put forth in the chargesheet is admitted, no offence under Sections 269 and 270 IPC has even prima facie been made out…,” the court ruled.

Charges under Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, were also quashed since “… there is no averment of any government official being obstructed or there being any refusal to comply with any directions issued by the government. No offence under Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, has therefore, been made out… There is no averment about which order taken out under the Disaster Management Act has been violated. It is not shown that there was any criminal act, whether under the Disaster Management Act or the Epidemic Diseases Act, committed by the petitioners. The FIRs under these two sections are also liable to be quashed.”

In conclusion, the court order dated 17th July 2025, stated: “In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that no offence under Sections 188/269/270/271 of IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is even prima facie made out in the Chargesheets.”

What the Delhi Police’s chargesheet had stated

The Delhi Police Crime Branch registered an FIR under various sections of the IPC, the Epidemic Diseases Act, the Disaster Management Act, and against Indian and foreign nationals in connection with alleged violations during the COVID-19 outbreak

A series of chargesheets were filed, with many foreign nationals entering plea bargains. Additionally, 28 FIRs were registered across Delhi against 193 individuals, leading to quashing petitions before the Delhi High Court. Questions arose regarding the legal validity of charges against petitioners, particularly under sections of the IPC that require specific procedural conditions. Courts across India have previously quashed similar cases, citing ‘procedural lapses’ and ‘insufficient evidence’.

It must be recalled that in the last week of March 2020, hundreds of Tablighi Jamaat attendees were found living inside the markaz, many of whom were in violation of their visa rules. Many of the attendees were reportedly found to be COVID-19 positive, and despite showing symptoms, had continued to stay there or move to the interiors of the country without getting themselves tested. Subsequently, many were moved to quarantine centres to ensure treatment and arrest the spread of the virus. However, even then, many Tablighi Jamaat attendees had attacked healthcare workers and even created ruckus at quarantine centres.

The Delhi Police’s chargesheet filed against the Tablighi Jamaat mentions that the Malaysian and Indonesian nationals who attended the gathering were carriers of the deadly virus and which led initial wave of coronavirus in India. The charge sheet talks about similar gatherings in Malaysia, which ended up being a super-spreader event. It also talked about a cancelled event in Indonesia where Covid-19 cases were reported before the outbreak in Delhi. Markaz Nizamuddin became the Covid hotspot and allegedly played a vital role in spreading it across the country.

Police mentioned in the chargesheet that the gathering in Malaysia between 27th and 1^st March 2020, resulted in 500 COVID-19 cases in that country. An event scheduled for 18^th  March in Indonesia was cancelled because of the authorities’ concerns. By that time, 25 people were already dead, and 309 were infected in that country. The chargesheet said that people from Malaysia, Indonesia, and other countries came to India to participate in the Markaz gathering in Nizamuddin. As per the police, they acted as carriers of the virus.

In the chargesheet, it was said that the CDMO/Southeast district contacted Markaz authorities on 19th March and asked to maintain social distancing and ensure home quarantine after an Indonesian man tested positive in Telangana. He had a history of travelling to Delhi for the Markaz gathering. Delhi Police contacted a Markaz official named Haji Yunus and asked him that there should not be more than 20 Jamaatis in Nizamuddin at any given time.

On 21^st  March 2020, Delhi Police called Mufti Shahzad and asked him to immediately ensure that foreign nationals leave for their respective states or countries. When the lockdown was announced on 24th March, Delhi Police issued prohibitory orders, but no official from Benglewali Masjid Markaz took any precautionary steps. On 25^th  March, a medical team was sent for the first time as there were reports that no one was following social distancing orders, and a Jamaati from Bangladesh started to show symptoms of COVID-19. On inspection, the police found that there were 526 foreign nationals and 1,183 Indians at the Markaz.

It must be recalled that in back in April 2020, in Haryana’s Palwal, three Bangladeshi men who attended the Tabilghi Jamaat event in Delhi’s Nizamuddin had tested positive. These Bangladeshi nationals, along with several other,s stayed in various mosques in villages of the Palwal area after attending the Delhi event of Tablighi Jamaat.

On 28th March 2020, the SHO of Hazrat Nizamuddin sent a written complaint to DCP Crime Branch and informed them about the alleged violation by the head of Markaz Maulana Saad and management. Lawyer for Tabhligi Jamaat, advocate Mujeez Rehman said, What good is an advisory by the administration at that time, asking to ensure social distancing? Tablighi members were self-isolated in Nizamuddin. Authorities should have shut down airports, screened passengers, and undertaken contact tracing.”

Once police started to track Jamaatis across countries, they found clusters of Covid positive cases across the country who came in contact with these Markaz members. The information provided by Markaz was incomplete or unverified in many cases, and it became hard for the administration to track jamaatis on time. They even tried to project that it is a conspiracy of the Indian government to defame Jamaatis.

It must be recalled that back in April 2020, the Deputy Commissioner of South Andaman District ordered to register FIR against two people Farzan Ali and S Rehman. who tested positive for COVID-19 for giving misleading information as authorities tried tracing their contacts. The duo, who had attended the controversial Islamic event in Delhi, have been giving wrong information about the places they visited during the home quarantine period apart from violating the terms and conditions of home quarantine

The Central government had told the Supreme Court in an earlier statement that the Markaz management deliberately disregarded police instructions to send back its members.

However, in the present case, the Delhi High Court not only quashed all the charges against the accused persons but court observations also present the accused as some sort of victims who have been needlessly villainised.

News