Delhi court orders FIR against journalist Karishma Aziz over Hindu-targeted posts
Synopsis
A Delhi magistrate has overruled the police's own initial finding — that no deliberate incitement was evident — and ordered an FIR against journalist Karishma Aziz over a series of X posts allegedly targeting Hindu religious figures and historical personalities. The case now pivots to whether the content constitutes protected satire or criminal incitement, a distinction courts across India are being increasingly asked to draw.
Key Takeaways
Chief Judicial Magistrate Mridul Gupta of Patiala House Courts ordered registration of an FIR against journalist Karishma Aziz on 17 September 2026 .
The alleged posts were made between February and April 2025 on social media platform X and reportedly targeted Lord Ram , Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj , Veer Savarkar , and PM Modi .
The South Saket Cyber Police Station had earlier found no evidence of a deliberate attempt to incite communal disharmony.
The court cited the Supreme Court 's Amish Devgan vs Union of India judgment to distinguish protected speech from potentially criminal expression.
FIR sought under Sections 196, 299 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) ; compliance report due within one week .
A Delhi court on Thursday, 17 September 2026, directed the Cyber Police Station to register an FIR against journalist Karishma Aziz over alleged derogatory social media posts targeting Hindu religious figures and historical personalities, as well as content allegedly tending to create communal disharmony. The order was passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Mridul Gupta of the Patiala House Courts.
Background to the Case
The court was acting on an application filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking registration of an FIR and a formal investigation. The complainant alleged that posts uploaded from an account on social media platform X between February and April 2025 contained remarks insulting Hindu religious beliefs and figures — including a Hindu saint, Lord Ram, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, and freedom fighter Veer Savarkar. Some posts were additionally alleged to contain derogatory remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi and to promote so-called 'anti-India' sentiments.
What the Court Recorded
The court noted that the complainant had placed on record screenshots, transcripts, and links pertaining to various posts and video uploads allegedly made through the social media account in question. In its order, the court observed: 'The allegations are not confined to an isolated statement. Rather, the complaint refers to a series of posts published over a period of time which, according to the complainant, contain derogatory remarks against Hindu religious beliefs, revered religious figures, historical personalities associated with the Hindu community and expressions tending to create communal disharmony.'
The court drew on the Supreme Court's judgment in Amish Devgan vs Union of India, noting that while freedom of speech is constitutionally protected, expressions made with deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings may attract penal consequences depending on context.
Police Had Found No Deliberate Incitement
Notably, the South Saket Cyber Police Station had earlier filed a status report acknowledging that the posts contained obscenity and material directly targeting Hinduism, but also characterised some content as political or historical commentary, criticism, and satire. After an initial enquiry, the police had stated they found no evidence of a deliberate attempt to incite communal disharmony.
The court, however, held that the current stage of proceedings was not meant to conclusively determine the truth of the allegations or the culpability of the accused. 'Whether the impugned posts ultimately constitute protected political commentary, satire, criticism or historical opinion, or whether they cross the threshold of criminality under the provisions invoked by the complainant, is a matter requiring investigation,' the court said.
Scope of Investigation Ordered
The court directed that investigation would be needed to collect and preserve electronic evidence — including material relating to the authorship and operation of the social media account, the uploaded videos and posts, their dissemination, and other electronic records. The order explicitly stated: 'The Court is satisfied that the complaint discloses commission of cognisable offences requiring investigation. It is made clear that no opinion is being expressed on the merits of the allegations, at this stage.'
The complainant has sought registration of an FIR for offences under Sections 196, 299 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The court has directed the concerned police station to file a compliance report within one week.
What Happens Next
With the FIR now ordered, the Cyber Police Station in New Delhi is required to formally register the case and initiate a full investigation in accordance with law. This case is being watched closely as it touches on the intersection of free speech, religious sentiments, and the relatively new legal framework of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The outcome of the investigation could have broader implications for how courts and law enforcement approach social media content involving religious and political commentary in India.
Point of View
And the invocation of Amish Devgan vs Union of India signals that courts are prepared to apply a nuanced, context-dependent standard rather than a blanket protection for satire. What mainstream coverage may underplay is how the police's initial reluctance to register a case — only for a court to compel it — illustrates the systemic tension between investigative discretion and judicial oversight in India's evolving cybercrime framework.
NationPress
17 Sept 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why has a Delhi court ordered an FIR against journalist Karishma Aziz?
The Delhi court ordered an FIR after finding that a complaint filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva — alleging derogatory posts on X targeting Hindu religious figures and historical personalities — disclosed cognisable offences warranting investigation. The order was passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Mridul Gupta of the Patiala House Courts on 17 September 2026.
What were the alleged social media posts about?
According to the complaint, posts made from an account on platform X between February and April 2025 allegedly contained derogatory remarks about Hindu religious figures including Lord Ram, a Hindu saint, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, and Veer Savarkar, as well as remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi and content alleged to promote 'anti-India' sentiments.
Why did police not register an FIR earlier?
The South Saket Cyber Police Station had filed a status report characterising some of the content as political commentary, criticism, and satire, and stated that after initial enquiry no evidence of a deliberate attempt to incite communal disharmony was found. The court, however, held that this determination required a formal investigation and could not be decided at the preliminary stage.
Under which legal sections has the FIR been sought?
The complainant has sought registration of an FIR under Sections 196, 299 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The court applied Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to direct the Cyber Police Station to register the case.
What legal precedent did the court rely on?
The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Amish Devgan vs Union of India, which held that while freedom of speech is constitutionally protected, expressions made with deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings may attract penal consequences depending on context. The court clarified it was not ruling on the merits of the allegations at this stage.
