In the case involving alleged sexual exploitation, religious coercion and forced conversion at the Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) BPO in Nashik, Maharashtra, the bail granted to the accused, Nida Khan, on the grounds of pregnancy has sparked discussion. Beyond the legal ruling itself, attention is focused on a specific remark made by Additional Sessions Judge KG Joshi; citing the birth of Bhagwan Krishna, the judge observed that the mental trauma of giving birth in prison and the associated social stigma, could be agonising for any mother and child.
While granting bail to the five-months-pregnant Nida Khan, the court reasoned that exercising judicial discretion was appropriate, considering the accused’s condition and the best interests of the unborn child’s future. The court also clarified that since the charge sheet had already been filed, there was no need to keep the accused in continued custody. However, a single line in the order has shifted the focus of the entire matter from the legal realm to the center of a social and cultural debate.
To ‘Nida Khan’, being Hindu is synonymous with being a ‘Kafir’!
The question arises: was it necessary to cite the birth of the Hindu deity ” Bhagwan Krishna” to express judicial empathy? A serious examination makes this question pertinent, given that this is the very same Nida Khan who harbors hatred toward Hindu gods and goddesses, someone who holds no belief in any Hindu tradition or religious practice.
The charges against her involve religious harassment; victims have clearly recounted how Nida Khan used to humiliate them regarding their Hindu deities. Is it appropriate to cite an example from the life of ” Bhagwan Krishna” in her context? Or was it truly essential to use that specific example? At first glance, this subject is also significant because, in the view of ‘Nida Khan’, being a Hindu is synonymous with being a ‘Kafir’, a category regarding whom so-called ‘Islam’ has a great deal to say!
Al-Wala’ wal-Bara: A Call to Distance Oneself from Disbelievers
There is a crucial principle in Islamic creed known as “Al-Wala’ wal-Bara’.” It signifies “loving for the sake of Allah and harboring hatred or maintaining distance solely for the sake of Allah.” Under this principle, forming close, heartfelt friendships with ‘kafirs’ (disbelievers) is strictly prohibited. Dr Muhammad Saeed al-Qahtani, author of the book ‘Al-Wala’ wal-Bara’ fil-Islam’, states, “A true Muslim’s faith cannot be complete unless he completely severs ties with the enemies of Allah (kafirs) and harbors ‘Bara’ (hatred or rejection) towards them in his heart. Excessive intimacy with ‘kafirs’, whether ideological or social, can cast a Muslim outside the fold of Islam” (pp. 112–115).
According to this principle, a Muslim can only regard another Muslim as a brother or friend. No matter how well a ‘kafir’ behaves, a Muslim is required to maintain an internal distance from him due to his religious status.
Similarly, in another book, ‘Tafsir Ma’ariful Qur’an (Volume 2)’, the author Mufti Muhammad Shafi Usmani writes (pp. 54–56, in the commentary on Surah Al-Imran, Verse 28): “Believers should not take ‘kafirs’ as their close friends (awliya) to the exclusion of fellow believers. And whoever does so has no connection with Allah.” Maintaining genuine heartfelt friendship and loyalty towards any ‘Kafir’ is strictly ‘Haram’ (forbidden).
In this regard, Mufti Shafi writes that there can be only three types of relationships with ‘Kafirs’: ‘Mudarat’ (superficial cordiality), ‘Muwasat’ (financial assistance) and ‘Muwalat’ (heartfelt friendship). Among these, ‘Muwalat’- meaning true friendship and loyalty of the heart, towards any ‘Kafir’ is strictly ‘Haram’.
The views of the author, Imam Hafiz Ibn Kathir, on this matter can also be found in the book ‘Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Volume 4)’; while interpreting Surah At-Tawbah (9:29), he writes: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day… until they pay the ‘Jizya’ with their own hands and remain in a state of humiliation (Saghirun).”
Many such Islamic texts exist containing hateful and negative content regarding ‘Kafirs’ (non-Muslims), material that justifies or incites violence against them. To put it plainly, the conduct for which ‘Nida Khan’ has been accused, specifically the way she treated Hindus while employed at TCS, could be described as a form of ‘Jihad’ waged by her against ‘Kafirs’!
The controversy stems from the reference to the birth of ‘Bhagwan Shri Krishna’
The court’s observation has sparked a sharp reaction on social media. Many have questioned the appropriateness of comparing the circumstances surrounding the birth of Bhagwan Shri Krishna to Devaki with the situation of a woman accused in a criminal case. Critics argue that Devaki and Vasudeva were not imprisoned due to any crime; rather, they were held captive by the tyrannical King Kansa as an act of abuse of power. Therefore, equating the circumstances of Bhagwan Shri Krishna’s birth with an accused person giving birth in prison conflates two culturally distinct contexts.
Many on social media are also pointing out that, within Indian religious and cultural consciousness, the birth of Shri Krishna symbolizes the establishment of ‘Dharma’ against injustice. Given this, extra caution is expected when incorporating religious symbols into judicial orders.
Legal expert Advocate Ashutosh Kumar Jha observes, “Courts possess ample constitutional grounds [for such decisions]. Principles such as a woman’s dignity, the right to life and personal liberty, the best interests of the child and humanitarian considerations can, in themselves, be sufficient grounds for granting bail. In such a scenario, there was no need to invoke religious contexts.”
Advocate Jha adds, “Judicial language is not merely a component of an order; it also shapes the judiciary’s image in society. Consequently, the choice of words in a judicial pronouncement is just as significant as the verdict itself.”
The case began with a complaint
It is noteworthy that this entire matter originated in March 2026, when a woman employed at TCS BPO lodged a complaint at the Deolali Camp police station in Nashik. The complaint alleged that she was drawn into a relationship under the false promise of marriage and subsequently faced religious pressure. Following this, the police initiated an investigation and questioned other employees associated with the company.
To facilitate the investigation, the police sent female officers into the company posing as employees in order to gather evidence regarding the alleged activities. As the investigation progressed, several other complaints surfaced, leading to the registration of a total of nine FIRs.
Serious allegations against Nida Khan
Nida Khan is among the prime accused in this case. A special investigation team of the Nashik Police is probing nine cases linked to TCS BPO. According to the police, it is alleged that attempts were made to influence certain Hindu female employees of the company to convert to another religion. The allegations include the sharing of religious literature, coercion to participate in religious activities and the exertion of mental and social pressure on the victims. Investigative agencies claim that in some instances, women were persuaded to alter their religious identity and adopt Islamic customs.
Ultimately, society expects the judiciary not only to deliver impartial verdicts but also to use language that aligns with the spirit of the Constitution and the country’s diverse cultural sensibilities. Since court judgments do more than just conclude legal disputes, they also shape society’s understanding of and faith in justice, the court’s remark regarding the birth of Bhagwan Shri Krishna during Nida Khan’s bail hearing is currently a subject of discussion. The straightforward point is this: why should Hindu deities be referenced in judicial language when addressing someone who holds no faith in God?
