On 16 September 2026, Shamli Police registered a First Information Report (FIR) against six individuals, including an advocate, for allegedly circulating misleading information on social media regarding the Allahabad High Court's proceedings in the Ayush Malik conversion case. The FIR was filed at Kotwali Shamli Police Station under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) following a complaint by Sub-Inspector Mohd Jahangir. The case involves claims that the High Court had rebuked the police, which authorities deny.
According to Live Law, the six individuals named in the FIR are Karishma Aziz, Nikhat Ali (@INikhatAli), The Muslim (@TheMuslimSphere), Wasim Akram Tyagi (@WasimAkramTyagi), Syed Kaif Hasan (@kaifsyedhasan), and Nadeem Saifi. The FIR alleges that these persons circulated posts on X and Facebook stating that the Allahabad High Court had "rebuked" Shamli Police during the hearing of Ayush Malik’s case.
The police described the information as "misleading and factless," asserting that the High Court neither required nor received any counter-affidavit or reply affidavit from the police. Coverage revealed that the police produced Ayush Malik and his father before the court in compliance with judicial orders, and no reprimand was issued by the bench.
In the background of the case, Ayush Malik’s father, Devraj Malik, filed a complaint on 6 June 2026, alleging that Chandni Qureshi and her family had converted his son to Islam and were threatening the family to transfer property. Further details indicated that an FIR was registered under multiple sections of the BNS and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. Chandni Qureshi and her father were arrested and later granted bail on 24 July 2026.
The FIR states: "The High Court neither required any counter-affidavit/reply affidavit from the police nor did the police file any such affidavit."
On 9 September 2026, Sultan Qari, identifying as a friend of Ayush Malik, approached the Allahabad High Court seeking directions for Malik to be produced and allowed to live independently. The court ordered the Superintendent of Police, Shamli, to produce Malik on 16 September. Analysis showed that after hearing both Malik and his father, the court granted Malik the freedom to reside wherever he wished.
The police allege that the accused distorted the High Court’s decision, presenting it in a manner capable of affecting public peace. The FIR asserts that such acts are punishable under Section 353(2) BNS. As details emerged, the police specifically denied any suggestion that the High Court had reprimanded them during the proceedings.
The police press note clarified: "After hearing the respective sides of Ayush Malik and his father, the High Court granted Ayush Malik the freedom to go anywhere and reside anywhere according to his own wish."
The FIR also records that the matter was a dispute between father and son, and the High Court’s order was limited to granting Ayush Malik liberty, without any adverse remarks against the police. Reporting indicated that the police have initiated legal proceedings against those accused of spreading misinformation, and investigations are ongoing.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.