Hindu organisation targeted and abused publically, defamatory posts shared on social media by Muslim man in Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh
Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India 
26 March, 2026
Case Summary
In Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, Hindu organisations were abused, and derogatory language was used against them by a Muslim man in a social media post. On 28 March 2026, a complaint was lodged at Bilari police station in Moradabad district, Uttar Pradesh, regarding an Instagram video posted by a Muslim man from Sanai village. The video contained abusive language directed against a Hindu organisation. The matter came to light after the video began circulating on social media and drew objections from members of Hindu organisations. Late on Friday night, 27 March 2026, Rajnish Garg, District Vice President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in Bilari, arrived at the police station along with office bearers of other Hindu organisations and submitted a written complaint against the Muslim man named Gulfaam Malik, a resident of Sanai village. In the complaint, it was stated that the accused had uploaded a social media post using abusive language against the Hindu organisation. It was further stated that the post had hurt the religious sentiments of workers associated with Bajrang Dal and other Hindu organisations in Bilari. Following the complaint, the police registered an FIR against the accused under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and initiated an investigation. The police stated that efforts were underway to trace the accused and that necessary evidence was being collected as part of the investigation process. At the police station, Rajnish Garg was accompanied by Vinod Kashyap, Avneesh Chaudhary, Vinod Maurya, Sunil Kashyap, Rahul Sharma, Satish Kumar, and Raju Kashyap. Representatives of the Hindu organisations expressed anger over the post and demanded strict action against the named accused, including his early arrest and imprisonment.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case is being added to the tracker under the primary category: Hate Speech against Hindus. The category is - Mocking/denigrating Hindu leaders. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which leads to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Religious leaders are often seen as representatives of the community, especially the community’s religious faith and beliefs. Mocking or denigrating a religious leader specifically owing to his religious identity and/or the religious rituals he observes can be considered hate speech because the motivating factor of the speech is animosity and/or dislike for what he represents – the religious beliefs and faith of the community. It is important to note that mere insulting words against an individual do not constitute hate speech. Insulting words may be used for an individual; however, the specific speech is not the result of religious hate and/or animosity towards the professed faith of the religious leader, but the individual himself. For the speech to be considered hate speech, the speech itself or the motivating factor behind the speech has to be religious in nature. Such speech, which denigrates Hindu religious leaders specifically owing to animosity towards the faith they profess and the community faith they represent, will be treated as hate speech under this category. Another primary category selected is- Attack not resulting in death. The subcategory selected is- Attacked for supporting/being part of a perceived Hindu party/org or working for the Hindu community. In several cases, Hindus are attacked specifically or tangentially for their association with parties or organisations perceived to be pro-Hindu and/or for working in favour of the Hindu community. One of the classic cases was the attack against a Bharatiya Janata Party Yuva Morcha (BJYM) worker, Praveen Nettaru. Nettaru was attacked and hacked to death for his association with Hindu organisations and his work for the Hindu community. He was murdered by PFI, a terror organisation that aimed to commit a genocide of Hindus, target Hindu leaders specifically and turn India into an Islamic Nation. In such cases, the immediate trigger for the violence may be non-religious – either according to the perpetrator or the police. However, there are surrounding circumstances from which the conclusion can be reached that the victim was attacked for his association with a Hindu organisation. In a similar case, Rinku Sharma was attacked by radicals. He was a member of Bajrang Dal and regularly worked for the Hindu community. While the police cited a different non-religious trigger for the attack, he was indeed associated with a Hindu organisation, and the family of Rinku Sharma specifically attributed his gruesome murder to his working for Bajrang Dal and raising Jai Shree Ram slogans. Such cases are intrinsically driven by religious hate and would therefore be documented as a hate crime under this category. This case was added to the tracker because the immediate trigger lay in the circulation of a social media video that used abusive language against Hindu organisations and the leaders associated with them. The concern was not merely that content was posted online, but that the language was specifically directed at bodies known for working in the interest of the Hindu community and the individuals who led and represented them. These organisations were not ordinary private institutions. They worked for the protection, upliftment, and welfare of Hindus and regularly took up issues affecting the community’s rights, safety, and religious identity. Because of this role, abusive language aimed at them naturally extended beyond the institution itself and affected the wider Hindu community whose interests they represented. Importantly, such organisations were identified with the leaders and workers who actively ran them and worked for Hindu causes. Therefore, targeting the organisation in abusive and defamatory terms also amounted to targeting those Hindu leaders and community workers who were publicly associated with it. In that sense, the hostility was not confined to a body in name alone but was directed at the persons leading and representing Hindu interests. Further, these organisations had often taken positions against radical elements and had opposed activities seen as harmful to Hindus. In this context, making abusive and defamatory posts against them carried a deeper implication. It could reasonably be seen as an attempt to pressure, mock, or silence those leaders and workers because of the work they were doing for the Hindu community. This is precisely why the selected grounds fit most appropriately in the present case. The abusive language was not random criticism. It was directed at Hindu organisations because of the leaders who worked for them and because of the causes they represented. The hostility, therefore, was attached both to the organisations and to the Hindu leaders and workers associated with them. Moreover, the use of social media made the impact more serious. Once such content entered the public domain, it became capable of reaching a wide audience within a short time. This increased the spread of insulting language against Hindu organisations and their leadership and amplified the harm caused to the community. In this context, the matter clearly went beyond ordinary disagreement or criticism. Legitimate criticism addresses specific conduct or decisions. Here, the use of abusive language reflected direct hostility towards bodies working for Hindu interests and towards the leaders associated with them. Taken together, the direct targeting of Hindu organisations, the denigration of the leaders working through them, and the wider public impact clearly justified inclusion in the tracker. The incident reflected hostility towards institutions and individuals representing Hindus and, by extension, towards the Hindu community itself. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incident dates based on when the victim's ordeal began, rather than when the media reported it. In this case, the report does not mention when the video was posted but mentions the date when the complaint was filed, 27 March, 2026; therefore, it has been recorded as the indicative incident date for documentation purposes.
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
