Outcome of the Cases in the Courts
The Nizamuddin Markaz case, involving the Tablighi Jamaat congregation held in March 2020 just before India's nationwide COVID-19 lockdown, led to multiple FIRs filed against attendees, organizers, and those who sheltered participants. These cases primarily alleged violations of lockdown rules, public health laws, and conspiracy under sections of the Indian Penal Code, Epidemic Diseases Act, and Disaster Management Act. However, courts across India have consistently ruled in favor of the accused, finding the charges baseless due to lack of evidence.
- In August 2020, the Bombay High Court quashed FIRs against 35 petitioners (including 29 foreign nationals), noting that the attendees were likely scapegoated amid the pandemic panic. Similarly, district courts in Delhi dismissed charges against several individuals for insufficient proof of their presence or violations.
- By December 2020, Delhi courts acquitted 36 foreign nationals from charges, citing the prosecution's failure to establish their involvement or any deliberate wrongdoing.
- In November 2021, the Delhi High Court criticized the police for pursuing cases without merit, emphasizing that sheltering congregation members during lockdown was a humane act, not a crime.
- Most recently, on July 17, 2025, the Delhi High Court quashed 16 FIRs and related charge sheets against 70 Indian nationals accused of sheltering foreign attendees, ruling that the allegations were "embellishments and exaggerations" with no evidence of lockdown violations, COVID-19 contraction or spread, or criminal intent. The court described the proceedings as an abuse of legal process, violating the petitioners' right to dignity.
Overall, out of hundreds of cases filed nationwide, the majority involving foreign and Indian nationals have been quashed or resulted in acquittals, with 908 foreign nationals pleading guilty to minor violations and paying fines, while 44 opted for trial (outcomes not specified in recent reports). No convictions for serious crimes like conspiracy or deliberate spreading of the virus have been upheld.
Are the Allegations of 'Corona Jihad' True or False?
The term "Corona Jihad" emerged in early 2020 as a conspiracy theory propagated by sections of Indian media and social media, alleging that Muslims associated with the Tablighi Jamaat deliberately spread COVID-19 as an act of jihad or biological terrorism. Hashtags like #CoronaJihad trended widely, appearing in nearly 300,000 tweets potentially seen by 165 million people, often accompanied by fake news such as claims of Muslims spitting to infect others or plotting conversions through the virus.
These allegations are false and unsubstantiated. Court rulings and investigations found no evidence of intentional spread or conspiracy. The congregation occurred before strict lockdowns, and attendees were stranded due to travel restrictions, not malice. Experts, including from India's Department of Biotechnology, confirmed no unique virus variant linked to the event supported deliberate transmission claims. Academic analyses and reports from organizations like Human Rights Watch describe it as Islamophobic hate speech and media bias targeting a religious minority, exacerbating communal tensions without factual basis. Searches for evidence supporting the claims yielded no credible sources; instead, results reinforced its status as misinformation.
Present Status of the Cases as of September 4, 2025
As of this date, the core cases related to the Nizamuddin Markaz have been resolved in favor of the accused, with no active major proceedings reported. The July 2025 Delhi High Court ruling quashed the remaining FIRs against Indian nationals, effectively closing those chapters. A separate Delhi Police investigation into Maulana Mohd Saad Kandhalvi (the Markaz head) for alleged culpable homicide and incitement found "nothing objectionable" in his recovered speeches, though some forensic analysis is pending and he has not yet joined the probe. No new developments or reopenings have been noted in recent reports, and the event is now viewed in legal terms as a non-criminal gathering impacted by unforeseen lockdown timing. However, affected individuals report lingering social stigma from the initial media frenzy.
