On July 13, the Special NIA Court, Ernakulam, sentenced six accused in the infamous 2010 Prof TJ Joseph Hand Chopping case. The court sentenced the three accused – Sajil, Nasar and Najeeb – to life imprisonment and the other three accused – MK Noushad, PP Moideen Kunhu and PM Ayoob – to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The court found that the accused did not deserve leniency as the accused had “no feeling of remorse.”
The case concerns the attack on TJ Joseph, then-Professor at Newman College in Thodupuzha, by a group of Muslim men in response to an exam question construed to be blasphemous and an insult to Mohammad. The accused chopped off Joseph’s hand to “strike terror in the minds of the people.”
“A group of religious fanatics who were not ready to leave it to the court of law to adjudicate whether the alleged conversation is innocuous, a creative piece of writing or an act which promotes hatred between different groups on grounds of religion, took the law into their own hands and declared it as an act of blasphemy to Prophet Mohammed and Islam. They then themselves delivered the sentence as per the religious text and executed the sentence by chopping off the right hand of the Professor, the hand by which he had penned the question. This most uncivilized act is the subject matter of this case,” the court noted.
Notably, the banned terror outfit Popular Front of India (PFI), and its political wing, Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) issued pamphlets and initiated protests against the Professor. “The organisation and party issued pamphlets and notices addressed its cadres to wake up and to take up a fight against the rival sections of the society,” the court noted.
The court notes that Prof Joseph’s suspension, the registration of a criminal complaint against him and his subsequent arrest did not calm down PFI and SDPI extremists. “The violent protests continued,” the court noted. The court further observed that the PFI and SDPI extremists were not ready to accept the allegedly blasphemous exam question as an individual act of the Professor but as a calculated attack on the Muslim community with the backing of worldwide “Christian imperialistic lobbies.”
The court noted that the Muslim men attacked the Christian Professor to “deliver sentences” on Joseph for the alleged blasphemy of Mohammad and Islam. The court observed that the accused chopped off the Professor’s hand in broad daylight and in the presence of his relatives and family, striking terror in the mind of a section of people. “The situation was really horrible,” the court said.
“Here is a case wherein a Professor’s hand was chopped off and thrown out in broad daylight in the presence of his relatives and neighbours, striking terror in the mind of a section of people. The situation was really horrible. As prescribed in their religious text, the accused were delivering sentences on Prof. Joseph for the alleged blasphemy of Prophet Mohammed and Islam in the question paper set by the said Professor. The mental trauma and physical pain suffered by the Professor is terrific. His wife, who had witnessed this incident, could not withhold the trauma for long and committed suicide,” the court described the facts of the case.
The court said, “Therefore, from the standpoint of the victim, the sentence to be imposed shall definitely be a deterrent, and the convicts don’t deserve any leniency,” citing Supreme Court’s ruling in the Jaswinder Singh v Navjot Singh Sidhu (2022) case.
The court further observed that the attack on TJ Joseph to deliver a sentence as per Islam, chopping off his hand to strike terror in the minds of the people is a “terrorist act.” The court also noted that the accused’s acts are a challenge to the country’s secular fabric, attempting to establish a parallel judicial system.
“What has been committed is a terrorist act. The Nation and its citizenry also suffered a lot. Terrorism has been recognised as one of the six most severe threats to civilisation, security and humanity. The act of the accused is a challenge to the secular fabric of our Nation. It attempts to establish a parallel religious judicial system which is absolutely illegal, illegitimate and unconstitutional. It has no place in independent India under our constitutional scheme. A country governed by the rule of law cannot fathom it,” the court said in its 461-page judgement.
“Adjudication of disputes is essentially the function of a sovereign state which can never be abdicated or parted with. Establishing a parallel religious judicial system goes counter to the policy of our constitution,” the court added.
The court noted that in the instant case, a suo motu case was registered against Professor TJ Joseph for the examination question alleged to be blasphemous to Mohammad and Islam. However, the accused “were not ready to leave it to the court of law to adjudicate the matter.” The court notes that the Muslim accused declared it an act of blasphemy and decided to deliver the sentence as per their religious texts, executing it by chopping off the Professor’s hand, with which he had penned the question. “This most uncivilised act cannot be countenanced at all,” the court said.
The court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Vishwa Lochan Madan (2014) case, wherein the apex court said, “Faith cannot be used as dehumanising force.” “Therefore, from the Nation’s standpoint, the sentence to be imposed shall be a deterrent, and the convicts don’t deserve any leniency,” the Special NIA Court held.
“The citizenry has a ‘fundamental’ and ‘human right’ from any kind of psycho-fear, threat, danger or insecurity at the hands of anti-social elements. Otherwise, they cannot strive towards excellence in all spheres of their individual and collective activity. The accused, by their violent terrorist activity, had really struck terror in the people’s minds. To avoid repeating similar incidents, imposing stringent punishment on the accused is highly necessary,” the court said.
The trial court further observed that the accused did not show any feelings of remorse. The prosecution further produced a witness, in whose marital home Sajil took shelter while absconding, who deposed before the court that when the news of the Professor’s wife’s suicide came out, Sajil was in a “celebrating mood.” “The factual circumstance doesn’t disclose any remorse on the accused’s side. Therefore I don’t find any possibility for the reformation of the accused,” the court said.
Thus, the Special NIA Court sentenced the three accused – Sajil, Nasar and Najeeb – to life imprisonment and the other three accused – MK Noushad, PP Moideen Kunhu and PM Ayoob – to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The court said that the substantive sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently and the convicts are entitled to get set off of the period undergone by them in custody. The court further discharged the bail bonds executed by the accused, except Nasar.
