Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has refused to grant bail to Islamic cleric Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan in connection with the September 2025 Bareilly violence, observing that the slogan “Gustakh-e-Nabi ke ek hi saza, sar tan se juda” amounted to a challenge to the authority of law and India's sovereignty and integrity.
Justice Ashutosh Srivastava, while rejecting Raza's bail plea, said the slogan could incite people towards an armed rebellion and therefore could attract penal consequences under the law.
Importantly, the order concerns bail. It does not amount to a final finding of guilt in the criminal trial.
The court drew a distinction between the alleged slogan and commonly used religious chants.
According to the judgment, slogans such as “Nara-e-Takbir, Allahu Akbar,” “Jo Bole So Nihal, Sat Sri Akal,” “Jai Shri Ram” and “Har Har Mahadev” express reverence towards the concerned God or Guru.
The court said the “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogan was fundamentally different because, in the context alleged by the prosecution, it amounted to a challenge to the authority of law and India's sovereignty and integrity.
The court also rejected the argument that such a slogan could simply be treated as another religious expression.
The case relates to violence that broke out in Bareilly on September 26, 2025, after a mobilisation connected to protests over the “I Love Muhammad” campaign.
According to the prosecution's case, Raza had called upon members of the Muslim community to assemble at the Islamia Inter College grounds to protest alleged atrocities and cases against Muslim youths.
The administration had subsequently prohibited public gatherings of five or more people under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The prosecution alleged that despite the restrictions, hundreds of people marched towards the designated area. Clashes subsequently broke out between protesters and police, with allegations of attacks on police personnel and damage to public property.
The court examined allegations that Raza had called for the gathering despite the administration's restrictions.
It also considered his conduct after the violence. According to the order, the prosecution relied on a speech in which Raza allegedly thanked people for responding to his call in large numbers and applauded their actions.
The court was therefore not considering the slogan in isolation. It examined the broader circumstances surrounding the mobilisation, the alleged violence and Raza's conduct.
The High Court ultimately concluded that it was not appropriate to release him on bail at this stage.
The ruling also raises an important legal question: where does political or religious expression end and incitement to violence begin?
The court's reasoning was that speech threatening the authority of law or encouraging violent rebellion cannot automatically claim protection merely because it is expressed as a slogan.
The distinction is particularly important because the case involves allegations of a slogan advocating beheading in response to alleged blasphemy.
The court's observation was that such language, in the circumstances of the case, went beyond an expression of religious devotion and had the potential to encourage violent action.
There is an important legal distinction here.
Tauqeer Raza has been denied bail; he has not been convicted by the trial court.
The High Court was assessing whether he should be released while the criminal proceedings continue, taking into account the allegations and material placed before it.
The criminal case itself will ultimately have to be decided through trial and the evidence presented before the competent court.
This is not the first time the Allahabad High Court has addressed the “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogan in the context of the Bareilly violence cases.
In an earlier order involving another accused, the court had similarly observed that the slogan challenged the authority of law and India's sovereignty and integrity, and had linked it to provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) dealing with acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity.
The latest order therefore adds to an emerging judicial record around the slogan and the violence that followed the Bareilly mobilisation.
The case goes beyond one bail application.
It puts a larger issue back in focus: can a slogan invoking violent punishment be treated as protected religious or political expression when it is allegedly used in a volatile public gathering?
The Allahabad High Court's answer, at least at the bail stage in this case, was clear: the alleged slogan could not be equated with devotional religious chants and, in the circumstances before the court, raised concerns about the authority of law, public order and India's sovereignty.
The criminal proceedings will now determine the allegations against the accused on the basis of evidence.
For now, the bail has been denied — but the final verdict on guilt is still to come.