New Delhi: A dispute at a tea stall in Uttar Pradesh’s Fatehpur has spiralled into a political flashpoint, with Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav’s public backing of a local chaiwala triggering protests by members of the Muslim community and drawing competing claims from all sides.It was a special day for Aryan Yadav, a tea stall owner in Uttar Pradesh’s Fatehpur district. On February 20, 2026, former chief minister Akhilesh Yadav stopped by his stall. Photographs were clicked as the 21-year-old stood next to Yadav’s car, offering him tea in a kulhad (earthen cup).Aryan, who is also a digital creator, shared the moment on his Facebook page, ‘Aryan Comedian’, which has around 14,000 followers. The video of him serving tea to Akhilesh garnered over 31,000 likes.Soon after, his life began to spiral.The inspection being done at Aryan Yadav’s tea stall. Photo: Video screengrab.On April 15, officials from Fatehpur’s Food and Civil Supplies Department visited Aryan’s tea stall in the Chauki Chouraha area. He was informed that the visit was prompted by an IGRS complaint regarding the quality of tea. IGRS (Integrated Grievance Redressal System) is an online platform through which the public can file complaints in Uttar Pradesh.Videos of the inspection later surfaced, showing officials examining the stall and conducting tests on the tea being prepared.Speaking to local media in Fatehpur, Rajesh Kumar Dixit, Assistant Commissioner in the Food and Civil Supplies Department, said, “We had received a complaint via IGRS, following which a food safety officer conducted an inspection on April 15. Owing to concerns about the quality of tea, samples of tea leaves have been sent for testing. His licence is valid till July 2028.”Dixit did not disclose the full name of the complainant during his interaction with reporters, but said the complaint had been filed by an ‘Ahmed, son of Raees’.Face-off over payment for teaOn April 17, an altercation broke out between Aryan and some Muslim customers at his shop. According to accounts shared by those named in the FIR, what began as an argument over payment escalated into a physical confrontation, with allegations that Aryan assaulted a minor.However, in an FIR dated April 17, 2026, filed by Aryan’s father, Sheshmani Yadav, at Fatehpur’s Sultanpur Ghosh police station, it was alleged that “as part of a well-organised plan, a group of men entered the shop, stole money, and molested [his] wife and daughter while hurling verbal abuse.” Those named in the FIR include Jarjees Ahmed, Qayoom Ahmed, Yasin Ahmed and Javed Ahmed, along with 16-17 unidentified persons.The FIR, a copy of which was accessed by The Wire, was registered under Sections 191(2) (rioting), 309 (robbery), 74 (assault or criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage modesty), 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 351(3) (criminal intimidation) and 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.Yasin Ahmed, who is named in the FIR and is currently out on bail after spending a night in custody, told The Wire, “It was sheer coincidence that I was present at Chowki Chauraha that day. I had given my vehicle for washing at a garage nearby. I went there only to help resolve the dispute. Javed, a friend of mine, and I rushed to the shop after hearing that a fight had broken out.”“Jarjees and Qayoom were not even present at the spot when the incident happened,” Yasin added.Recounting the sequence of events, Yasin said that when he reached Aryan’s tea stall, he first met Deepak Yadav, Aryan’s elder brother, who told him that a fight had broken out and the shop shutter had been pulled down. He then met a minor Muslim boy who, according to him, had been slapped during the altercation. “He called me mamu (uncle), and I realised he was the nephew of a friend. I then noticed blood coming out of his ear,” Yasin said.In a video shared with this reporter, purportedly from April 17, the minor can be seen at a nearby medical store receiving first aid, with a swollen face and blood visible from his right ear. “We feel ashamed and are not even stepping out, as none of us have ever been involved in anything like this before,” Yasin said.The Wire could not independently verify whether the complainant identified as ‘Ahmed, son of Raees’ – as mentioned by the Food and Civil Supplies Department – had any link to the four men named in the FIR.VHP steps inAmong those who reached out to help Aryan Yadav, on April 17, was the local unit of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), an organisation affiliated with the Sangh Parivar.Speaking to this reporter, Narendra Hindu, VHP’s Prakhand Sanyojak in Fatehpur’s Bhitaura village, told The Wire, “I received a call from Aryan’s family members saying they were being physically assaulted by 40-50 Muslims. I immediately informed the administration. Since the spot was about 45 km away, we reached the police station, followed legal procedures, and spoke to the SHO.”VHP members along with Aryan’s father at police station. Photo: By arrangement.The following day, on April 18, Aryan wrote to Fatehpur Superintendent of Police Abhimanyu Manglik. “I was threatened and asked if I consider myself to be some kind of hotshot politician after serving tea to Akhilesh Yadav,” Aryan wrote in the letter, a copy of which was seen by The Wire. “Not all the accused in connection with this case have been arrested yet, and pressure is being mounted on the applicant to arrive at a compromise,” he added.Maintaining his stand, Aryan has said he is being targeted following his recent visibility and perceived proximity to Akhilesh Yadav. “Akhilesh Yadav visited my stall and had tea on February 20, 2026. Since then, I have been receiving death threats. I was also told to take back the case, or else fake charges would be levelled against me,” he told The Wire. Aryan, however, did not respond to subsequent calls seeking his response to the counter-allegations by members of the Muslim community.Police officials, meanwhile, have offered a more measured account. According to Durgesh Deep, Circle Officer, Khaga (Fatehpur), “Five persons were produced before a magistrate in connection with the case. Allegations of loot and molestation could not be substantiated. Physical assault did take place. The investigation is ongoing.” Aryan shares his account at Akhilesh’s press conferenceOn April 19, Aryan went to Lucknow, where he shared his account at a press conference addressed by Akhilesh Yadav.At the press conference, Aryan maintained that “a few days ago, some people came to my shop and, while invoking the name of the national president (referring to Akhilesh Yadav), told me that since I had served him tea, they would not let me run the shop.”Among other allegations, Aryan also claimed that his shop was recently inspected by the Food and Civil Supplies Department, where officials told him not to use aluminium vessels for making tea.Backing Aryan, Akhilesh Yadav told reporters, “A BJP leader put forth a local leader from the Muslim community in order to intimidate him (Aryan Yadav). I hope this young chaiwala will get justice and that action will be taken against those behind this incident, as well as those backing them.”He further added, “The head of the government doesn’t know the definition of BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) or other environmental parameters – just see the extent to which officials are going to show their loyalty.”Akhilesh Yadav also referred to ‘Dhunni Singh’, formally known as Ranvendra Pratap Singh – a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) National Council and a former cabinet minister in the Uttar Pradesh government (2017–2022) – as the “BJP leader behind the recent assault and intimidation of Aryan Yadav.”In 2023, Akhilesh Yadav had criticised the Adityanath government after a sarus crane was taken away from a man named Arif by forest officials, who said the bird needed to be returned to its natural habitat. Akhilesh had met Arif in Amethi before the forest department took action.Local Muslims protest against AkhileshMeanwhile, on April 20, a group of people from the Muslim community gathered near an effigy of Akhilesh Yadav in Fatehpur’s Hussainganj assembly constituency, protesting his gesture of gifting brassware to Aryan Yadav at the press conference in Lucknow. The gift of a brass tea saucepan was seen as a retort by the SP chief to Uttar Pradesh authorities, who had reportedly raised objections to Aryan using an aluminium vessel.A video screengrab showing the protest against Akhilesh Yadav in Fatehpur’s Hussainganj assembly constituency.“A small issue was blown out of proportion and wrong information was fed to the national president [Akhilesh Yadav]. Only one side was heard; the other side was neither invited nor heard,” said Nadeem Uddin, a Samajwadi Party (SP) worker. Nadeem, who is colloquially referred to as ‘Nadeem Pradhan’ (village head), also served as the SP’s Alpsankhyak Morcha district president between 2011 and 2014.Speaking to The Wire, Nadeem, while referring to allegations against four Muslim men named in an FIR filed by Aryan Yadav, said, “Things were exaggerated. That boy [Aryan Yadav] is a YouTuber and did this for cheap popularity.”“Ninety percent of Muslims in Uttar Pradesh consider Akhilesh Yadav their leader – why would the community speak against him?” he added.Nadeem Uddin, former SP Alpsankhyak Morcha president, addressing a press conference. Photo: By arrangement.Abbas Haider, an SP spokesperson in Lucknow, refuted allegations that the party had taken a one-sided stand, saying, “It is our duty to stand with the marginalised. This is not a Hindu-Muslim issue. We have our sources, and it is the BJP that is sending such people to oppose the tea stall owner.”“It is the BJP’s politics that is communal and caste-based, as they seek to create unrest in society. This is like a toolkit for them,” Haider added.On the protests in Fatehpur, Haider said, “We are aware of what is happening on the ground. These are BJP people who have put up a mask.”A political turnFormer BJP MLA Dhunni Singh, responding to Akhilesh Yadav’s allegations that he was involved in sand mining and the illegal trade of tortoises and alcohol, said, “If Akhilesh Yadav has any evidence against me, I will quit politics; otherwise, I will file a defamation case.”When asked whether he knew those named in the FIR – Jarjees Ahmed, Javed Ahmed, Qayoom Ahmed and Yasin Ahmed – Singh told The Wire, “None of them have worked for me, nor are they from my village. Their fathers or grandfathers may have been associated with me, as I have been in politics for the last 40 years.”Narendra Hindu of the VHP, meanwhile, said the issue was being politicised. “This case is being given a political colour. We went there to support the tea stall owner as Hindus, but within constitutional means. As for the IGRS complaint, if someone has a grievance, action will be taken – why link it to Yogi or Modi?” he said, when asked whether the action by the Food and Civil Supplies Department was politically motivated.On the implications of the protests by Muslims for former chief minister Akhilesh Yadav, Dr Ravikant, associate professor at Lucknow University and a Congress member, told The Wire, “The way [Asaduddin] Owaisi’s influence in Uttar Pradesh has grown, especially among the youth, a message is being created that people have already seen other political parties. Akhilesh Yadav should have been more cautious on such issues. It seems he may have been misled.”“Yadavs have been a core vote base for the SP, but the party has always tried to keep Muslims close as well. This was reflected in recent outreach efforts, whether through Azam Khan or Naseemuddin Siddiqui,” Ravikant added.