Case involves derogatory posts targeting Hindu Dharma, Veer Savarkar, and PM Modi
New Delhi – The Patiala House Court here has directed the cyber police to register a First Information Report (FIR) against social media user and self-styled ‘journalist’ Karishma Aziz for posting derogatory remarks targeting Hindu religious beliefs and historical figures, and for comparing Prime Minister Narendra Modi to a dog.
Court Directs Registration of FIR Against Karishma Aziz (@KarishmaAziz_)
With the grace of Bhagwan Shri Krishna, I am pleased to share this good news.
Today, the Ld. CJM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, allowed our application under Section 175(3) BNSS and directed the SHO,… pic.twitter.com/ImQ5AgC93S
— Amita Sachdeva, Advocate (@SachdevaAmita) September 17, 2026
The Court explicitly stated that the allegations against Karishma Aziz prima facie disclose cognisable offences requiring investigation, while stressing that it was not commenting on the ultimate merits of the case. The Court issued these directives while hearing a petition moved by Advocate Amita Sachdeva.
What were the offensive remarks?
The complaint alleges that her posts on ‘X’ directly targeted Prabhu Shri Ram, Hindu Saints, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, Veer Savarkar, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Specific instances highlighted in the matter include:
-
- Mocking the spiritual teachings and physical disability of a revered Hindu Saint.
- Comparing the Prime Minister of Bharat to a dog.
- Deriding and ridiculing Hindu warriors and great historical figures.
- Glorifying the tyrant Aurangzeb while denigrating sacred Hindu symbols.
- Labelling Veer Savarkar a “traitor”, thereby targeting Hindu Dharma and patriotic sentiments.
Delhi police’s weak-kneed stance
In their reply submitted to the court, the Delhi Police took an evasive and weak-kneed stance, contending that although the posts contained obscenities and targeted Hindu Dharma, they were in the nature of political and historical commentary, criticism, and satire. They further submitted that their preliminary enquiry had found no evidence of any deliberate attempt to disrupt communal harmony.
Dismissing this reasoning, the Court clarified that whether these remarks fall strictly within the domain of political commentary or satire, or whether they have crossed the threshold into criminal acts, is an issue that can only be determined through a comprehensive police investigation.
- Why is the Delhi Police so reluctant to act against open contempt for Hindu Dharma, national icons and the sitting Prime Minister?
- The Patiala House Court’s firm directive rightly forces investigation and reasserts that deliberate provocation will not enjoy a free pass under the guise of free commentary.
