All of India hailed Mohd Deepak, but the FIR against him won’t go away

GYM owner Deepak Kumar, also known as Mohammad Deepak, who bravely stepped forward to defend the rights and dignity of a 70-year-old Muslim shopkeeper in Kotdwar, is being lauded by right-thinking citizens across India for standing up to intimidation and injustice. Yet, in a stark twist, the Uttarakhand High Court has pulled him up, restraining him from posting on social media and leaving him entangled as an accused in an FIR — a move that raises uncomfortable questions about the workings of the criminal justice system.

On 26 January, Deepak intervened when a group of men pressured the elderly shopkeeper to remove the word “Baba” from his establishment. Introducing himself as Mohammad Deepak during the confrontation, he refused to back down, earning admiration from many. Days later, members of the Bajrang Dal reportedly assembled to confront him, though police prevented further escalation.

Deepak and his friend Vijay Rawat filed a petition seeking to quash the FIR filed against them, claiming that those who allegedly abused them and spread hate in front of Deepak’s gym had not been held accountable despite video evidence. The high court, however, remained unmoved. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal cautioned the petitioners against “indulging in sending messages or videos on social media” and observed, “Don’t sensationalise the matter. You are accused facing an investigation. This is my strict direction to you.”

The petitioners had also sought police protection and a departmental inquiry into the alleged inaction of officers. The court dismissed these pleas, noting that such measures risked “sensationalising” the case and hampering the ongoing investigation.

Justice Thapliyal underscored the importance of cooperating with investigative authorities. “The incidents of 26 and 31 January were unfortunate. This court hopes and trusts that the investigation agency will conduct and conclude the investigation in a fair and transparent manner… Until the investigation is complete, the petitioners must refrain from posting on social media. Any such act could compromise the investigation.”

The legal tussle has sparked debate over the criminal justice system’s handling of whistleblowers and defenders of the underdog. While citizens hail Deepak as a courageous individual standing up against harassment and injustice, the system’s response — treating him as an accused and restricting his voice — casts a shadow over notions of fairness and moral courage.

In the age of social media and public advocacy, the saga of Mohammad Deepak raises a piercing question: Is standing up for an underdog now considered a crime?