Hindu victims’ complaints in Nashik TCS case dismissed as “manufactured”; self-styled legal group defend Muslim accused who forced Hindus to convert to Islam
Nashik, Maharashtra, India 
22 April, 2026
Case Summary
The Nashik TCS (Tata Consultancy Services) BPO sexual exploitation and forced conversion case drew nationwide attention after multiple Hindu employees came forward with serious complaints of sexual exploitation, coercion, and religious targeting within the workplace. However, as the investigation progressed and arrests were made, an alleged fact-finding report released by a self-constituted five-member APCR (Association for Protection of Civil Rights) team introduced a counter-narrative that shifted focus away from the victims and towards defending the accused. At the centre of this intervention was the APCR’s claim that there was no conclusive evidence of any organised religious conversion activity within the TCS facility. Further, the source of their claims lay in the statements of the accused’s relatives, who denied the charges orally without furnishing any proof. Rather than engaging with the gravity of the allegations, the report reframed the case as exaggerated and lacking evidence of organised wrongdoing, thereby questioning the basis of the complaints raised by Hindu victims. The TCS BPO case had come to light after a woman employee filed a complaint, following which multiple Hindu victims came forward describing a consistent pattern of harassment, intimidation, inappropriate behaviour, and psychological pressure linked to religious targeting. Several accused employees, some in positions of authority, used influence and manipulation, including false promises of marriage and career support, to exploit victims, while also attempting to impose religious practices and belittle Hindu deities. Complaints further indicated coordinated actions, intrusive conduct, stalking, and threats, alongside inaction from internal mechanisms that allowed the situation to persist. Notably, APCR’s national secretary, Nadeem Khan, who had been booked by the Delhi Police in November 2024 for hatching a criminal conspiracy and promoting enmity and unrest during a communally charged exhibition in Delhi, stated during the release of the APCR report that civil society organisations did not trust the investigation being conducted by the Nashik police. He demanded that the case be investigated by a retired High Court or Supreme Court judge. He further suggested the use of narco analysis on both complainants and accused persons. By casting doubt on the investigation itself, the narrative positioned the accused in a more favourable light while indirectly undermining the victims' credibility. This shift in emphasis contributed to reframing the case from one of exploitation and coercion to one of competing narratives. He also termed the case a conspiracy to prevent Muslims from working in corporate jobs, stating, “The issue will be used to prevent Muslims from securing employment at corporate workplaces. It is difficult to believe that someone can be forced to observe roza for 24 hours. The FIRs filed by the police raise multiple doubts, and their role has become questionable.” Alongside him, activist Teesta Setalvad described the case as “manufactured”. She stated, “The Nashik case is a manufactured case that will not hold in a court of law. The process is the punishment. A crime should never be seen through the lens of religion or caste. It is important to note that Nida Khan is being targeted because of her gender.” Joining them, former journalist and Nashik-based activist Niranjan Takle claimed that the first complaint in the TCS Nashik case had been made by an employee who was not a victim. He demanded narco tests on both the complainants and the accused to ascertain the truth, stating, “The allegations in most of these FIRs are vague and cannot be proven. The truth will come out only when the complainants and the accused are made to undergo narco tests.” They further dismissed the entire case as a ploy to cover up sexual exploitation involving Nashik-based astrologer Ashok Kharat. They also alleged that the TCS Nashik case was a ruse to divert attention from public scrutiny of the Nashik civic body's alleged tree-cutting for the Simhastha Kumbh Mela and another alleged housing-related scam. However, the claims made in the APCR report did not withstand scrutiny when examined against the details disclosed by the victims in multiple FIRs relating to sexual harassment and religious coercion in the Nashik TCS workplace case. The first FIR in the case was registered on 23rd March at the Deolali Camp Police Station in Nashik. Following the registration of the FIR, women police officers reportedly went undercover within the company to investigate the matter. The operation revealed accounts of victims who had been subjected to sustained sexual harassment, vulgar remarks, physical advances, invasive questioning, and derogatory comments against Hindu deities within the BPO for several years. This led to multiple victims coming forward and filing FIRs against the accused. According to the complaints, six Muslim employees working as team leaders and two women, including one Muslim, had been forcing Hindu women to convert to Islam, offer namaz, and consume beef. The harassment and coercion reportedly continued for over four years. In an FIR dated 3rd April 2026, a 23-year-old Hindu victim stated that Raza Meman and Shahrukh Qureshi had made sexually coloured remarks towards her and mocked Hindu customs. In another FIR dated 2nd April 2026, filed by another 23-year-old Hindu woman, five accused were named, and details were provided of sexual harassment and religious insults. The victim, who had recently married, stated that Shahrukh Qureshi and Raza Meman repeatedly questioned her about her honeymoon, sexual life, and past relationships in an intrusive and inappropriate manner. She further stated that Asif Ansari had made derogatory comments about Hindu practices, including suggesting that sexual violence occurred in Hindu communities because women did not wear burqas, alongside remarks mocking Hindu deities. Another FIR stated that the accused mocked Hindu deities such as Brahma, Ram, and Sita. Brahma was described in derogatory terms, while claims were made that Ram and Sita consumed meat during their exile. The accused were also said to have mocked the existence of Lord Shiva and cast aspersions on the parentage of Lord Ganesha. Victims stated in their complaints that their repeated reports regarding misconduct, including the consistent mocking of Hindu beliefs, had been ignored. Their testimonies indicated that the accused used workplace authority to suppress complaints relating to sexual harassment, exploitation, and religious coercion, with the alleged aim of eventual conversion. The APCR report appeared to overlook these details and instead relied on a selective interpretation of events. The APCR, constituted in 2006 and registered under the Societies Registration Act, was associated with Prashant Bhushan and the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). The organisation had appeared in several controversial cases, often extending legal aid to individuals accused of violent incidents, including those linked to communal unrest. Its fact-finding reports had frequently been criticised for presenting one-sided narratives. This was not the first instance where the organisation had attempted to advance a narrative of selective victimhood. In July 2024, it released a report claiming a rise in anti-Muslim incidents following the Lok Sabha election results. The report was cited by several media outlets to support similar claims. Critics had pointed to patterns of selective reporting, raising concerns about the potential to deepen communal divisions and shape international perceptions. Further, this was not the only instance where alternative narratives had been introduced in high-profile cases. Similar attempts to dilute allegations and recast accused individuals as victims had been observed previously. In this case, various commentators and activists introduced narratives that appeared to weaken the complaints. For instance, claims were circulated that Nida Khan, identified by complainants as a key figure, was pregnant. Razak Qazi, uncle of the accused Raza Memon, stated that the case was fabricated and alleged that the complainants were acting under the influence of the Bajrang Dal. Statements by the Danish Sheikh’s mother were also highlighted, in which she denied the allegations and suggested that the complainant had voluntarily engaged with him. Similar claims were made by the wife of another accused, who described the relationship as consensual and questioned the credibility of the accusations. Likewise, sections of the media, including The Indian Express and journalist Rajdeep Sardesai, were seen highlighting perspectives that cast doubt on the victims’ accounts. Reports cited statements suggesting that the case stemmed from a “relationship gone wrong”, with claims that multiple accused individuals had been falsely implicated. Such narratives raised questions about the character and credibility of the complainants.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Hate speech against Hindus. The sub-category selected here is- Anti-Hindu subversion and prejudice. The tertiary category selected under it is: Anti-Hindu Fake news or Downplaying. 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. Media plays a specific and overarching role in perpetuating prejudicial attitudes towards a community owing to unfair, untrue coverage and/or misrepresentation/misinterpretation, selective coverage and/or omission of facts of/about issues affecting a specific religious group. This type of bias can dehumanise the victim group, making it easier for others to justify harmful actions against them, which aligns with the objectives of hate speech laws aimed at preventing such harm. It is often observed that the media takes a prejudicial stand against the Hindu community, driven by their need to shield the aggressor community, which happens to be a numeric minority; however, that is the one perpetrating violence against Hindus. For example, the media is often quick to contextualise religiously motivated crimes against Hindus, omit or misrepresent facts that point towards religiously motivated hate crimes, justify and/or downplay religiously motivated hate crimes, or present fake news to stereotype Hindus. Such media bias leads to the denial of persecution and is often used to dehumanise Hindus, leading to justification for violence against them. For example, the media covered several fake allegations of Hindus targeting Muslims and forcing them to chant Jai Shree Ram. Most of these cases were proved false and fabricated after police investigation. These fake news reports were subsequently never retracted or clarified. Such fake news led to the justification of violence and dehumanisation of Hindus based on the argument that since Hindus targeted Muslims and forced them to chant Jai Shree Ram, the dehumanisation of Hindus and violence against them was par for the course and merely a retaliation. Such media bias leads to prejudicial portrayals of Hindus and offers a justification for violence against them and, therefore, is considered hate speech under this category. This case was added to the tracker because the response did not arise as neutral fact-finding but as a structured defence presented under the guise of a legal advocacy exercise. Instead of engaging with the seriousness of the allegations, the intervention by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights appeared directed towards reshaping the narrative in favour of the accused and diluting the experiences of the Hindu complainants. Firstly, the approach taken was to question and dilute the charges. Despite multiple FIRs by multiple complainants, their recorded statements, and an ongoing police investigation, the report focused on highlighting inconsistencies and gaps while disregarding the broader pattern described by the victims. This was not a balanced examination but a selective reading of facts, where the credibility of the Hindu complainants was systematically weakened without substantiating the denial of their ordeal. Secondly, the material relied upon in the report revealed a clear imbalance. The legal advocacy group drew heavily from statements made by relatives and associates of the accused, amplifying their claims while giving little to no weight to the testimonies of the victims. Assertions made by these individuals were presented without supporting evidence, and yet were used to cast doubt on formally recorded complaints. This reliance on partisan accounts, without independent corroboration, indicated that the exercise was not aimed at uncovering truth but at constructing a defensive narrative. Moreover, the manner in which the report was framed suggested a predetermined conclusion. Rather than conducting an open-ended inquiry, the findings appeared aligned with a pre-existing position that sought to absolve the accused. The denial of organised wrongdoing and the characterisation of the case as exaggerated reflected not an outcome of investigation but a narrative that had been shaped in advance and then supported through selective interpretation. Further, a clear pattern emerged in the attempt to undermine the investigative process itself. By questioning the police probe and suggesting alternative mechanisms such as a judicial inquiry or narco analysis, an impression was created that the investigation was inherently biased. This was not merely procedural criticism; it functioned to plant doubt about the credibility of law enforcement from the outset, thereby pre-emptively weakening the evidentiary value of the findings and repositioning the accused as victims of a prejudiced process rather than individuals facing serious charges. Additionally, the report downplayed the religious dimension of the complaints. Allegations involving coercive references to religion, pressure to adopt Islamic practices, and targeting of Hindu beliefs were either minimised or dismissed as unsubstantiated. This framing reduced serious accusations of religious targeting and exploitation into isolated or doubtful claims, thereby affecting how the victims’ experiences were perceived. Subsequently, the intent behind this approach became evident in the overall structure of the narrative. The effort was not merely to present an alternative viewpoint but to systematically recast the case in a manner that shielded the accused while eroding the credibility of the Hindu victims. By prioritising selective doubt over documented complaints, the intervention contributed to a broader pattern where allegations involving Hindus are subjected to heightened scepticism. Consequently, this stance, which sought to reinterpret the case as exaggerated or misconstrued, had the effect of diluting the seriousness of the allegations and shifting attention away from the victims’ ordeal. By amplifying narratives that questioned the complainants and foregrounded the defence of the accused, the gravity of the reported sexual exploitation, coercion, and religious targeting was minimised in public discourse. Disclaimer: Media reports identified a five-member legal advocacy team involved in preparing and presenting the report. Accordingly, the number of perpetrators has been recorded as five (5). This is a conservative estimate based on the available information, as additional individuals may have contributed to the exercise beyond those identified.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
