In a notable legal development, a Delhi court has instructed the Delhi Police to file a First Information Report (FIR) against Karishma Aziz, a social media user, for allegedly making derogatory remarks against Hinduism and key historical figures, and for comparing Prime Minister Narendra Modi to a dog. The order was issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate Mridul Gupta of the Patiala House Court, who stated that the accusations indicate the commission of cognizable offenses that warrant investigation.
Court’s Directive Under Section 175(3) BNSS
The court’s decision was based on an application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which empowers a magistrate to direct law enforcement to register an FIR and investigate alleged cognizable offenses. Magistrate Gupta’s order necessitates the SHO of the Cyber Police Station in New Delhi to formally register the FIR and proceed with a thorough investigation.
Details of the Complaint
The complaint, filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva, highlighted several contentious posts discovered between February and April 2025. These posts allegedly included disparaging comments about a Hindu saint’s spiritual beliefs and physical disability, derogatory comparisons of the Prime Minister, and mockery of notable Hindu warriors and historical figures. Aziz was also accused of portraying Aurangzeb in a favorable light while allegedly denigrating Hindu icons, and labeling Vinayak Damodar Savarkar as a traitor, thus targeting Hinduism and patriotic sentiments.
Delhi Police’s Initial Findings
In its preliminary response, the Delhi Police acknowledged the presence of obscenity and targeted remarks against Hinduism in the posts. However, they were characterized as political or historical commentary, criticism, and satire. The police indicated that their initial inquiry did not uncover evidence suggesting a deliberate attempt to incite communal disharmony.
Court’s Stance on the Investigation
At this procedural stage, the court clarified that determining the truth of the allegations or establishing criminal liability is not required. The court acknowledged the submission of screenshots, transcripts, and links documenting a series of posts over a substantial period. It emphasized that whether these posts are protected as political commentary, satire, or criticism, or if they transgress into criminality, is a matter that demands detailed investigation.
Judge Gupta concluded by stating that he had not yet formed an opinion on the substantive merits of the allegations.
