During an election campaign in Maharashtra’s Palghar district on May 18, BJP leader and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath delivered a controversial speech. At a rally in Palghar, Maharashtra, he declared that within five years, the adhan (call to prayer) from mosques will disappear. He also claimed that in UP namaz is no longer offered on roads and mosque loudspeakers have been removed.
This is not an isolated incident – Adityanath has frequently stoked communal tensions through polarizing rhetoric. Last month, he accused opposition parties of reciting Islamic prayers at graves of criminals, alleging their policies enabled lawlessness.
The current election campaigning has been marred by divisive statements from BJP leaders. Even PM Modi referred to Muslims as “infiltrators” and used a racial slur against the community.
In response, the Bengaluru-based Law and Policy Research Institute (LPRI) filed a complaint against Adityanath with the Election Commission and Maharashtra’s Chief Electoral Officer. The complaint argues his Palghar speech violated key provisions:
The Model Code of Conduct by appealing to communal sentiments, criticism beyond policies, and corrupt practices related to elections.
The Representation of the People Act by promoting religious enmity and inciting it during polls.
The Indian Penal Code sections 153A (promoting enmity between religious groups), 295A (outraging religious feelings), and 505(2) (creating ill-will between classes).
The LPRI stated Adityanath’s remarks endanger communal harmony and secularism. By violating laws against hate speech during elections, his conduct could inflame tensions.
The complaint urges the Election Commission to act, as the Model Code mandates guidelines for fair polls in India’s diversity. Human rights groups decry the hate speech as attacking minorities and undermining constitutional values. As UP’s CM overseeing a large Muslim population, Adityanath’s provocative statements reinforce prejudices rather than inclusivity, critics argue. His comments exemplify the polarizing discourse this election, with parties accused of prioritizing communal fault-lines over real issues.