Delhi Court Orders FIR Over Social Media Posts Targeting Hindu Beliefs

New Delhi, September 18, 2026

A Delhi court has directed the police to register an FIR against social media user Karishma Aziz over a series of posts and videos allegedly containing derogatory remarks concerning Hindu religious beliefs, historical figures and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The court’s order came after it found that the allegations raised in the complaint disclosed cognisable offences warranting a police investigation.

Chief Judicial Magistrate Mridul Gupta of the Patiala House Court passed the direction while hearing a plea filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva. The court invoked Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, under which a magistrate can direct the police to register an FIR and investigate a cognisable offence. “Accordingly, the application under Section 175(3) BNSS is allowed. SHO, Cyber Police Station, New Delhi, is directed to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint and undertake investigation in accordance with law,” the Court ordered.

According to Sachdeva’s complaint, she came across several posts between February and April 2025. The complaint alleged that the content mocked a Hindu saint’s spiritual beliefs and disability, compared the Prime Minister to a dog, and made disparaging references to Hindu warriors and historical figures. It further alleged that Aziz portrayed Aurangzeb favourably while making demeaning remarks about Hindu icons, described Savarkar as a traitor and made other comments concerning Hinduism and patriotic sentiments.

Delhi Police, in its response, said that although some of the posts contained obscenity and targeted Hinduism, they could be viewed as political or historical commentary, criticism and satire. The police also stated that its enquiry had not found evidence of a deliberate effort to provoke communal disharmony. However, the court observed that at the stage of deciding an application under Section 175(3) BNSS, it was not required to conclusively establish the truth of the allegations or determine criminal liability.

The court noted that the complainant had submitted screenshots, transcripts and links relating to multiple posts published over a period of time. It said that determining whether the material constituted protected political commentary, satire, criticism or historical opinion, or crossed into criminality, required investigation. Judge Gupta also clarified that the order did not amount to an opinion on the merits of the allegations.