Muhammad Badrudduja Jan
In a ruling that could be described as an ironic twist of “divine justice,” the Supreme Court of India has upheld the acquittal of Gulzar Ahmad Bhat, popularly known as Gulzar Peer, a self-styled faith healer accused in 2013 of sexually exploiting minor girls at his seminary in Budgam, Jammu and Kashmir. The decision, delivered on May 15, 2025, marks the end of a contentious legal saga that has wound through India’s judicial system for over a decade, leaving in its wake questions about justice, power, and the vulnerability of survivors in a deeply divided society.
The Genesis of the Case
The case erupted in May 2013 when four minor girls, aged between 12 and 16, accused Gulzar Peer of sexual abuse at his “spiritual healing center” in Budgam. The allegations, detailed and harrowing, included charges of rape and sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Peer was arrested swiftly, amid a public outcry that reverberated across the Kashmir Valley. The accusations shook a region where spiritual leaders often command unwavering loyalty, exposing the underbelly of unchecked power in religious institutions.
The public response was unprecedented. Religious scholars, women’s rights activists, and even separatist leaders—rarely aligned—united in condemning Peer. Protests erupted in Budgam and Srinagar, with hundreds demanding justice for the survivors. The Jammu and Kashmir government, under pressure, vowed a thorough investigation, with then-Chief Minister Omar Abdullah assuring the public of stringent action.
Acquitted, Then Upheld—Thrice
In February 2015, the Principal Sessions Court in Budgam acquitted Gulzar Peer, citing “insufficient evidence” and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The judgment stunned activists and survivors’ families, who argued that the prosecution had failed to protect vulnerable witnesses in a region marked by social stigma and fear of retribution. The state government appealed the decision, but in 2017, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court upheld the acquittal, reinforcing the lower court’s stance on the lack of conclusive evidence.
Undeterred, the Jammu and Kashmir administration escalated the case to the Supreme Court. On May 15, 2025, a bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of both lower courts. The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasized the prosecution’s failure to meet the burden of proof required for conviction, effectively closing a case that had once galvanized public outrage.
A Familiar Pattern: Past Cases in Jammu and Kashmir
The Gulzar Peer case is not an isolated incident in Jammu and Kashmir, where allegations against influential figures have often ended in acquittals or prolonged legal battles. In 2006, the infamous Srinagar sex scandal rocked the region when a minor girl’s testimony exposed a network of exploitation involving politicians, bureaucrats, and security officials. Despite initial arrests, most accused were acquitted by 2013 due to “lack of evidence” and alleged witness intimidation, leaving survivors and activists disillusioned.
Similarly, in 2018, the Kathua rape and murder case—involving an eight-year-old girl from the Bakerwal community—exposed systemic failures in protecting marginalized victims. While the case resulted in convictions in 2019, it highlighted the challenges of securing justice in a polarized region, where communal and political narratives often overshadow survivors’ voices. These cases, like Gulzar Peer’s, underscore recurring issues: inadequate investigations, societal pressures on survivors, and the influence of powerful accused.
The Verdict: Legal Victory or Moral Defeat?
Legally, the Supreme Court’s decision aligns with the cornerstone of Indian jurisprudence: the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The judiciary’s role is to evaluate evidence, not public sentiment. Yet, the ruling raises uncomfortable questions about the justice system’s ability to address cases involving minors, particularly in conservative societies where survivors face stigma and retaliation.
The prosecution’s failure to build a robust case points to deeper systemic issues. In Jammu and Kashmir, where conflict and social hierarchies complicate justice delivery, gaps in forensic evidence, witness protection, and investigative rigor often undermine survivors’ testimonies. The Gulzar Peer case mirrors national trends: a 2023 NCRB report noted that only 34% of POCSO cases result in convictions, with acquittals frequently attributed to “insufficient evidence” or witness hostility.
For many, the verdict feels like a moral defeat. “When a child’s testimony is dismissed, it’s not just a legal failure—it’s a betrayal of trust,” said a Srinagar-based child rights advocate, speaking anonymously. The acquittal of a figure like Peer, who wielded spiritual and social influence, sends a chilling message to survivors contemplating coming forward.
The Public Reaction: From Rage to Resignation
The fiery protests of 2013 have given way to a weary silence in 2025. The streets of Budgam, once alive with chants for justice, are quiet—not out of acceptance, but resignation. Social media platforms like X reflect a similar sentiment, with users expressing frustration but little hope for change. “Another powerful man walks free. What’s new?” read one post from a Kashmir-based user, echoing a broader cynicism.
This shift mirrors public response to past cases. After the Srinagar sex scandal, initial outrage fizzled into disillusionment as acquittals piled up. The Kathua case, while yielding convictions, left many in Jammu and Kashmir skeptical of systemic reform. For locals, the Gulzar Peer verdict is another chapter in a familiar story: the powerful evade accountability, while the vulnerable bear the cost.
What Next?
For Gulzar Peer, the Supreme Court’s ruling is a legal exoneration. Whether he resumes his “spiritual healing” practices or retreats from public life remains uncertain. His seminary, once a hub of devotion, has faded from prominence, but his acquittal may embolden others in similar positions of influence.
For the survivors, now young women, the verdict offers no closure. The trauma of abuse, compounded by a decade of legal battles and public scrutiny, is a lifelong burden. Their courage in speaking out, though unvindicated in court, has sparked conversations about reforming child protection mechanisms and addressing power imbalances in religious institutions.
Justice or Just This?
The case of Gulzar Peer is a stark reminder of the chasm between legal justice and moral accountability. The Supreme Court’s ruling may close the case, but it opens wounds for those who see it as a failure to protect the vulnerable. In a region scarred by conflict and distrust, the verdict reinforces a painful truth: justice often falters where power prevails.
As Jammu and Kashmir grapples with its complex social fabric, the Gulzar Peer case should serve as a call to action. Strengthening investigations, protecting witnesses, and empowering survivors are not just legal imperatives but moral ones. Until then, the heavens may remain silent, and justice will feel like a distant prayer.
