32 FIRs Filed Against Jawed Habib in UP’s Sambhal Case

A total of 32 First Information Reports (FIRs) have been registered in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal district against well-known hairstylist Jawed Habib, a name widely recognised across India’s beauty and salon industry. The case has not just stirred local attention but has also drawn national curiosity due to Habib’s celebrity status and the scale of the allegations. While details of the FIRs are still surfacing, the incident raises deeper questions about public image, commercial conduct, and accountability in the influencer era.

Who is Jawed Habib?

Jawed Habib is one of India’s most famous hairstylists and entrepreneurs. He owns a vast chain of salons under the “Jawed Habib Hair and Beauty” brand name, with branches across major cities and even abroad. Coming from a family of barbers — his grandfather served the first Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru — Habib built a modern image around hairstyling and fashion, promoting professionalism in what was once viewed as a humble vocation.

Over the years, he became a familiar face on television, social media, and in advertisements, often hosting hairstyling workshops across India. However, such visibility often comes with scrutiny. Habib has previously faced criticism for controversial comments and actions, and now, the Sambhal case has pushed him back into the headlines.

According to early reports, 32 FIRs have been filed in different police stations within Sambhal district. These reports allegedly concern customer grievances and professional misconduct related to services at local Habib-branded salons. Some FIRs claim that customers were dissatisfied with salon treatments or felt deceived by false promotional promises.

The exact nature of the charges varies from station to station. Some are related to alleged fraudulent advertising practices, while others mention health and hygiene concerns. The police have not yet confirmed whether all FIRs directly name Jawed Habib himself or include local franchise owners operating under his brand.

Indeed, many of Habib’s salons function through a franchise model, where independent owners operate under his licence. This makes the case both complex and multi-layered — distinguishing between personal accountability and brand responsibility will be a major legal challenge.

Police officials in Sambhal have confirmed that they are verifying each complaint and collecting evidence before moving forward with further investigation. Statements are being recorded, and authorities may summon local franchise operators and employees for questioning.

Meanwhile, no formal arrest or legal summons has yet been issued against Jawed Habib. Sources close to the hairstylist suggest he has not made any public comments so far regarding the case. Legal experts believe that Habib’s degree of involvement would depend on whether the franchise contracts clearly define quality control, training, and accountability clauses.

The news has triggered widespread debate online. On social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram, reactions are mixed. Supporters of Habib argue that such large-scale filing of FIRs seems exaggerated, possibly reflecting franchise disputes or competitor interference. Others insist that if customers have genuine concerns, they deserve to be heard and addressed fairly.

Many have pointed out that brand ambassadors and global entrepreneurs bear a certain moral responsibility when their name is attached to a business, regardless of franchising structures. As a result, the controversy has opened up discussions about consumer rights, quality assurance, and celebrity accountability across business sectors in India.

The case highlights how trust has become the most precious asset for modern brands. For someone like Jawed Habib, whose entire identity revolves around personal grooming, self-presentation, and customer confidence, even the perception of negligence can lead to significant reputational damage.

Experts in brand management say that handling this crisis with transparency and prompt communication will be critical. A delayed or defensive response often deepens the public’s suspicion. If the issue stems primarily from franchise mismanagement, Habib may need to reassess his brand’s oversight mechanisms.

This case also draws attention to an ongoing challenge in India’s growing service sector — the franchise business model. While franchising allows rapid expansion, it can also dilute brand quality if not carefully monitored.

Consumers often cannot differentiate between company-owned and franchise-run branches. As a result, when a local outlet fails to deliver a promised service, the entire brand takes the hit, regardless of who is legally responsible. The Habib case could therefore serve as a wake-up call for other brands in beauty, fitness, and hospitality industries to enforce stricter quality checks and consumer protection policies.

At present, the investigation is ongoing, and it would be premature to draw conclusions about Habib’s personal involvement. However, the filing of 32 FIRs in one district underlines both public dissatisfaction and the sensitivity around professional ethics in customer-facing businesses.

The coming weeks will likely see developments on three fronts:

Police investigation into each complaint’s validity
Legal clarification regarding Jawed Habib’s accountability versus that of franchise owners
Public communication from Habib or his company addressing the allegations