Delhi Court Orders FIR Over Alleged ‘Derogatory References’ to Hindu Figures

A Delhi court has directed the registration of an FIR against Karishma Aziz over a series of social media posts and videos allegedly containing derogatory references to Hindu religious beliefs, religious figures and historical personalities.

Chief Judicial Magistrate Mridul Gupta of the Patiala House Courts passed the order on Thursday after hearing an application filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The court directed the SHO of the Cyber Police Station, New Delhi, to register the case and investigate the allegations in accordance with law.

What does the complaint allege?

According to the complaint, a series of posts and videos uploaded between February and April 2025 allegedly contained remarks concerning Hinduism and Hindu religious and historical figures.

The complainant alleged that the material referred to figures including Lord Ram, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and freedom fighter Veer Savarkar, besides making remarks concerning Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The complaint also referred to videos that allegedly mocked Hindu warriors and historical figures and accused Aziz of presenting historical material in a manner that demeaned Hindu figures. These are allegations contained in the complaint and have not been established by the court.

Police had a different preliminary assessment

The court's order came despite the police's preliminary response to the complaint.

According to reports, the Cyber Police Station, South, Saket, said its inquiry found posts containing obscenity and material directly targeting Hinduism, but also described portions of the content as political or historical commentary, criticism and satire.

Police told the court that their inquiry had found no evidence of a deliberate attempt to incite communal disharmony.

Why did the court order an FIR?

The court said the issue at this stage was not to determine whether the allegations were ultimately true or whether Aziz was criminally liable.

Instead, it considered whether the complaint and material placed before it disclosed circumstances requiring a police investigation.

The court noted that the complaint concerned a series of posts over a period of time, rather than a single isolated statement. It also observed that determining the authorship and operation of the social media account, the dissemination of the posts and videos, and other electronic evidence would require investigative steps.

The court further observed that whether the material amounted to protected political commentary, satire, criticism or historical opinion, or crossed the threshold into criminal conduct, was a matter requiring investigation.

Sections invoked in the complaint

The complainant sought action under Sections 196, 299 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The provisions cited in the complaint relate broadly to promoting enmity between groups, deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, and statements conducing to public mischief. The applicability of these provisions to the disputed material remains a matter for investigation and subsequent legal proceedings.

Court makes clear FIR order is not a finding of guilt

A key part of the order is the court's clarification that the direction to register an FIR does not amount to a finding on the merits of the allegations.

The court specifically said it was not required at this stage to conclusively determine the truthfulness of the allegations or record a final finding regarding criminal liability.

It also directed the SHO to submit a compliance report within one week.

What happens next?

The Cyber Police will now register the FIR and conduct the investigation.

Investigators are expected to examine the disputed social media posts and videos, establish the operation and authorship of the account, examine their dissemination and collect relevant electronic evidence.

The investigation will also determine whether the material meets the legal threshold under the sections cited in the complaint.

For now, the court's order only sets the investigation in motion. It does not establish that the allegations against Aziz are true or that she has committed the offences alleged in the complaint.