SC Rejects Plea to Transfer Azam Khan’s 2007 Speech Case Outside Uttar Pradesh
SC Rejects Plea to Transfer Azam Khan’s 2007 Speech Case Outside Uttar Pradesh
M.U.H
15/07/202522
NEW DELHI: The legal challenges surrounding senior Samajwadi Party leader and former Uttar Pradesh Cabinet minister Mohammad Azam Khan continue to deepen, as the Supreme Court on Monday firmly rejected his petition seeking the transfer of the hearing in the longstanding 2007 inflammatory speech. The apex court’s decision reinforces the position that mere allegations of tampering or bias are insufficient grounds for moving cases beyond state jurisdiction.
The bench, comprising Justice MM Sundaresh and Justice NK Singh, dismissed arguments presented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who represented Azam Khan. Sibal claimed the evidence in the case had been manipulated, asserting that the original video recording of Azam Khan’s speech was altered to an audio clip, compromising its authenticity and risking a prejudiced trial.
“Azam Khan has received a certified copy of the original video. If the court admits the altered audio as evidence, it would jeopardise the fairness of the trial,” argued Sibal during the hearing.
The petition also raised concerns about witnesses allegedly being threatened and pressured, creating a hostile atmosphere for a fair hearing in Uttar Pradesh. Sibal stated, “There is a deliberate attempt to malign and intimidate my client, making it impossible for justice to be served impartially in the state.”
However, the Supreme Court bench countered these claims, stressing that such allegations alone cannot justify shifting the venue of the case. The court remarked, “You may pursue any course you like, but that is not sufficient to grant a transfer.”
While the petition was rejected, the Supreme Court made it clear that Azam Khan retains the right to pursue other legal remedies concerning the alleged changes in court records. This statement offers some relief to the former minister, signalling that concerns over evidence can still be legally addressed without disrupting the ongoing trial in Uttar Pradesh.
This legal battle stems from a speech made by Azam Khan during a public meeting in Rampur in August 2007. The speech, which the authorities claim contained inflammatory remarks, became the basis for the case against him. The recording of this speech exists on a CD and has been central to the prosecution’s evidence.
In a related development last year, the Supreme Court stayed a lower court order requiring Azam Khan to provide his voice sample for comparison with the speech recording. Azam Khan has consistently maintained that the entire case is motivated by political vendetta, targeting him as a prominent Muslim leader in Uttar Pradesh.
The Muslim community and many political observers have expressed concern over the prolonged legal difficulties faced by Azam Khan, seeing the case as part of a broader pattern of targeting Muslim leaders in the state.
A prominent social activist from Rampur, Saeed Ahmad, commented, “Azam Khan’s struggle is not just his own but symbolic of the challenges Indian Muslims face in political and legal arenas. The court’s rejection of the transfer petition is a setback, but we trust in his ability to fight the system and prove his innocence.”
Another resident, Farzana Begum, said, “The way witnesses are reportedly being pressured is worrying. This creates an unfair environment for any leader, especially someone from the Muslim community, to defend themselves properly.”
Legal experts note that while the Supreme Court’s decision adheres to strict principles regarding jurisdiction, it also leaves room for addressing concerns about evidence and witness intimidation through proper channels.
Senior advocate Rajiv Mehrotra said, “The Supreme Court’s stance reflects the judiciary’s reluctance to change case venues lightly. The courts expect parties to prove actual bias or tampering beyond mere allegations. However, the door remains open for Azam Khan to file appropriate petitions to safeguard the integrity of evidence and witness testimony.”
Following the Supreme Court’s verdict, Azam Khan indicated his intention to continue fighting the case vigorously within Uttar Pradesh while separately addressing the issue of alleged evidence tampering.
In a statement, Azam Khan said, “The rejection of the transfer plea is disappointing, but not the end. I will pursue all legal avenues to ensure that the truth prevails and that no tampering with evidence undermines justice. This case is an example of political victimisation, and I am confident of my eventual vindication.”
This case highlights ongoing tensions in Uttar Pradesh, where Muslim politicians and leaders often face intense scrutiny and legal challenges amid a complex political environment. Many see the Azam Khan case as emblematic of the difficulties Muslims encounter in seeking justice and political representation in a state marked by religious polarisation.
Human rights advocate Nisar Khan observed, “The treatment of Azam Khan sends a strong message to Muslim leaders about the hurdles they face in the political arena. The judiciary must remain impartial and sensitive to the communal context surrounding such cases.”
