A Delhi court has directed the registration of a case against social media user Karishma Aziz over X posts and videos with allegedly derogatory references to Hindu religious and historical figures, even as police said they related to political and historical commentary, criticism, and satire. Police cited their inquiry and told the court they found “no evidence of deliberate attempt to incite communal disharmony.”
Chief judicial magistrate Mridul Gupta (Patiala House Courts) passed the order on Thursday after Amita Sachdeva, a lawyer, moved the court for a case against Aziz. He directed the Cyber Police Station (New Delhi) to register a case and investigate the allegations. The court directed that a compliance report be filed within one week.
Sachdeva alleged that Aziz made a series of posts between February and April 2025 allegedly “insulting Bhagwan Shri Ram, Veer Savarkar and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, besides making remarks concerning Hinduism and the Prime Minister”.
The complainant cited screenshots, transcripts and links to the posts and videos and sought registration of a case under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Sections 196 (promoting enmity between different groups), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) and 353 (statements conducing to public mischief).
The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh, noting that the police cannot refuse to register a case merely by assessing the reliability or credibility of information disclosing a cognizable offence.
{{/usCountry}}The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh, noting that the police cannot refuse to register a case merely by assessing the reliability or credibility of information disclosing a cognizable offence.
{{/usCountry}}“At the present stage, this court is not required to meticulously evaluate the truthfulness of the allegations or record any conclusive finding regarding criminal liability,” the court said. It added that the question was whether the complaint and supporting material disclosed circumstances warranting a police investigation.
The court noted that the complaint concerned a series of posts over time, rather than an isolated statement. It said the question of whether the posts constituted protected political commentary, satire, criticism or historical opinion, or crossed the threshold of criminality, was “a matter requiring investigation.”
“Determining the authorship and operation of the social media account, dissemination of the videos and posts and other electronic records would require investigative processes, with such evidence not wholly within the reach of the complainant.”
The court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Amish Devgan versus Union of India and observed that freedom of speech is constitutionally protected, but expressions intended to promote disharmony or made with deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings may attract penal consequences, depending on the context.
The court said it was satisfied that the complaint disclosed commission of cognisable offences requiring investigation.