A Delhi court has directed the registration of an FIR against journalist and X (formerly Twitter) user Karishma Aziz over allegations that she shared derogatory content concerning Hinduism, Hindu religious figures, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, and freedom fighter Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
The order was passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Mridul Gupta of the Patiala House Courts while hearing an application filed under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The complaint sought directions for registration of an FIR and investigation into multiple social media posts allegedly published between February and April 2025.
According to the complainant, the posts contained offensive remarks against Hindu beliefs and personalities and were capable of disturbing communal harmony. It was further alleged that certain posts glorified Mughal ruler Aurangzeb while denigrating prominent Hindu historical figures.
The Cyber Police Station, South District, Saket, submitted a status report before the court. The report noted that the content under scrutiny included political commentary, criticism, satire, historical observations, and material considered offensive by the complainant. However, the police stated that it had not found conclusive evidence indicating a deliberate attempt to incite communal disharmony.
After examining the complaint and the material placed on record, the court observed that the matter involved multiple social media posts over a defined period and required a thorough investigation. The court noted that relevant electronic evidence, account operation details, authorship of posts, dissemination of content, and other digital records would need to be examined by investigating authorities.
The court clarified that directing registration of an FIR does not amount to endorsing the allegations made in the complaint. Rather, it signifies that the allegations disclose a cognizable offence warranting investigation. The court emphasized that it is for the investigating agency to determine whether the impugned posts constitute protected political speech, satire, criticism, or cross the threshold into criminal conduct under applicable law.
Consequently, the court directed the Station House Officer (SHO) of the concerned Cyber Police Station to register an FIR and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. A compliance report has been sought within one week.
The case is expected to contribute to the ongoing legal discourse surrounding freedom of expression, social media accountability, religious sentiments, and the limits of protected speech in the digital age.