Hindu woman advocate pressured to wear burqa by Muslim intern; sexually and physically assaulted for refusing
Central Delhi, Delhi, India 
5 September, 2025
Case Summary
In Delhi's Tis Hazari Court, a Hindu woman advocate and intern, Mahi Kaur, was subjected to sexual assault and physical violence by a Muslim intern identified as Saud. She was targeted for refusing the accused's repeated demands that she wear a burqa. According to the complaint, the incident occurred after Saud, who had joined the court as an intern in September 2025, made unsolicited comments about the Hindu advocate's attire. He demanded that she wear a burqa, claiming that she would "look good" in it. When the advocate objected, stating that such remarks were inappropriate in a professional environment, he touched her inappropriately, passed derogatory comments, and later physically assaulted her inside her chamber by slapping and kicking her. The victim stated that when the confrontation escalated, she began recording the incident on her phone. During the recording, Saud slapped her, and the assault was captured on video. The footage subsequently circulated widely on social media, drawing public attention to the incident and prompting widespread discussion. Following the incident, the victim approached the police and lodged a complaint against the accused. Based on her complaint, an FIR was registered, and an investigation was initiated into the allegations of sexual assault, physical assault, and other offences arising from the incident. The recorded video of the assault also became part of the material associated with the case as the investigation proceeded.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category selected in this case is: Attack not resulting in death. The subcategory selected is: Attacked for Hindu identity. In several cases, Hindus are attacked merely for their Hindu identity without any perceived provocation. A classic example of this category of religiously motivated hate crime is a murder in 2016. 7 ISIS terrorists were convicted for shooting a school principal in Kanpur because they got ‘triggered’ seeing the Kalava on his wrist and tilak that he had put. In this, the Hindu victim had offered no provocation except for his Hindu religious identity. The motivation for the murder was purely religious, driven by religious supremacy. Such cases where Hindus are targeted merely for their religious identity would be documented as a hate crime under this category. The second primary category selected is: Predatory Proselytisation, and the selected subcategory within this is: Harassment, threat, coercion for conversion. Harassment covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person, including threats and coercion. Harassment and threats, in this case, find their root on discriminatory grounds which has the effect of nullifying a person’s rights or infringing upon his freedom to exercise his right specifically owing to the victim’s religious identity. Verbal and physical threats and psychological or physical harassment are often used against Hindu victims because they choose to practice their professed religion. Religious harassment also includes forced and involuntary conversions by harassment, threats or coercion. Coercion includes intimidatory tactics like force-feeding a Hindu victim beef to convert to another religion, forceful circumcision etc. In several cases documented, non-Hindu perpetrators or those who harbour specific animosity towards Hinduism, harass victims simply based on their religious identity. Such cases often also include harassment to ensure the Hindu victim abandons his/her professed religion and adopts the religion of the perpetrator. Such cases where Hindu victims are harassed to convert to the perpetrator’s religion are rooted in animosity towards the victim’s religious identity and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. Here, the victim's Hindu identity became central to the incident because it was precisely her refusal, as a Hindu woman, to adopt an Islamic religious marker that triggered the accused's aggression. Although the accused did not explicitly demand that the victim convert to Islam, his repeated insistence that she wear a burqa cannot be viewed as a casual remark or a matter of personal preference. The burqa is an Islamic religious and cultural garment associated with Muslim women. Repeatedly pressuring a Hindu woman to adopt such attire amounted to an attempt to make her conform to an external marker of Islamic identity, thereby undermining her freedom to express her own religious and cultural identity. Such conduct reflects a subtle but significant form of religious coercion, where the objective is not an immediate declaration of conversion but the gradual replacement of visible expressions of the victim's Hindu identity with those associated with another faith. The victim's refusal is equally significant. Rather than respecting her decision, the accused escalated his conduct by touching her inappropriately, making derogatory remarks, and ultimately assaulting her physically. The sequence of events indicates that the violence was not an isolated act of sexual misconduct but followed her rejection of repeated demands that carried a religious dimension. The assault therefore served as a means of punishing the victim for refusing to submit to the accused's attempts to impose an Islamic religious marker upon her. Predatory proselytisation does not always manifest through an explicit demand to convert. In many instances, it begins with sustained efforts to erode an individual's attachment to their own religious identity by encouraging or coercing the adoption of the practices, symbols, or outward expressions of another faith. Such incremental acts can function as a precursor to deeper religious conformity by normalising the abandonment of one's own religious identity in favour of another. In the present case, the repeated insistence that a Hindu woman wear a burqa, coupled with the assault following her refusal, reflects an attempt to impose an Islamic religious identity upon her against her will. For this reason, the incident warrants documentation under the tracker's hate crime database, as it demonstrates coercive efforts to replace elements of the victim's Hindu identity with those associated with Islam, even in the absence of an overt demand for religious conversion. Disclaimer: The exact date of the incident was not specified in the available sources. While the reports identify the incident as having occurred in September 2025, they do not mention the specific day on which the offence took place. Accordingly, the tracker has recorded the incident by combining the known month and year with the reporting date: 6th May, 2026. This has been used for documentation purposes only. The recorded date is therefore indicative and should not be interpreted as the confirmed date of occurrence.
Victim Details
Total Victim
1
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 0
- Female 1
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 1
- Unknown 0
Age Group
- Minor 0
- Adult 1
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
