Uttarakhand High Court Questions Petitioner's Claims Amid Controversy Over Shopkeeper Harassment

The Uttarakhand High Court has raised concerns over Deepak Kumar's petition, which seeks police protection following his opposition to the harassment of a Muslim shopkeeper. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal questioned Kumar's motives, suggesting he was sensationalizing the issue. The case stems from an incident where Kumar and another individual intervened against a mob's intimidation of the shopkeeper. The court's remarks indicate a complex legal battle ahead, as Kumar faces accusations while advocating for human rights. The situation has sparked significant public discourse, with many defending Kumar's stance against religious discrimination. Stay tuned for further developments in this unfolding legal drama.

By Narendra Chaudhary Mar 19, 2026, 20:28 IST

Court's Stance on Police Protection Request

On Thursday, the Uttarakhand High Court addressed Deepak Kumar, who had raised concerns about the mistreatment of an elderly Muslim shopkeeper by alleged members of the Bajrang Dal. The court suggested that Kumar was overdramatizing the situation by requesting police protection as part of his legal petition.

Justice Rakesh Thapliyal made these remarks while reviewing a petition filed by Kumar, which challenged the legal action against him and sought an inquiry into police officers who allegedly neglected to address hate crimes.

The legal case against Kumar and another individual, Vijay Rawat, originated in late January when both men intervened to protect the shopkeeper, Vakeel Ahmed, from harassment by a mob objecting to the name of his shop.

On January 26, a group confronted Ahmed, leading Kumar and Rawat to voice their objections, after which they were advised to refrain from further involvement.

The FIR against them was lodged following complaints from two individuals affiliated with the Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, organizations linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, which is associated with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

Following the incident, approximately 40 individuals gathered outside Kumar's gym, chanting slogans against him and obstructing a national highway.

Kumar subsequently filed a complaint regarding the protestors, but the police initiated a case based on an officer's report against unidentified individuals involved in the protests.

Both Kumar and Rawat argue that the FIR against them is biased.

During the hearing, the court questioned Kumar's request for protection, emphasizing that it was inappropriate for an accused individual to seek such measures in a petition aimed at quashing the FIR.

Justice Thapliyal remarked, “This is a complete misuse of the legal process. How can an accused person ask for protection? Trust the police; they are capable. You are a suspect.”

The judge also challenged Kumar's request for an inquiry into police conduct, questioning the legitimacy of such a plea.

“What kind of request is this? It seems like a pressure tactic. I may dismiss this with significant costs against the petitioner,” the judge stated, highlighting that Kumar's actions were unnecessarily complicating matters for law enforcement.

Advocate Navnish Negi, representing Kumar, argued that his client was attempting to defuse tensions during the January incident.

In response, Justice Thapliyal urged the advocate to concentrate on the legal relief sought rather than the narrative surrounding the case.

The judge acknowledged that only the request to quash the FIR would be considered.

Regarding Kumar's plea for police protection, the judge affirmed that the administration has a duty to uphold law and order.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for Friday.

After the incident, Kumar shared a video on Instagram stating, “I am neither a Hindu, nor a Muslim, nor a Sikh, nor a Christian. Above all, I am a human being. After my death, I will answer to God and humanity, not to any religion.”

He emphasized that individuals should not face discrimination based on their religious beliefs.

The FIR against Kumar and Rawat has drawn criticism on social media, with many asserting that Kumar is being targeted for advocating for humanity and opposing the harassment of a Muslim individual.