Back
Delhi Court to Hear Plea Seeking FIR Against Nishu Azad Over Communal Social Media Posts
A plea has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of in Delhi, seeking the registration of a against Nishu Azad, a protester associated with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), and her father. The application, moved by advocate , alleges that the minor Azad published derogatory social media posts that incited and insulted Hindu deities. CJM Mridul Gupta is scheduled to hear the matter on .
The case arises from a broader altercation involving Swatantra Bharadwaj, against whom an FIR was previously registered under the . Bharadwaj was granted for three weeks in that case. The present plea, however, focuses exclusively on the online conduct of Nishu Azad and her father, whom the complainant accuses of failing to remove offensive posts despite being given an opportunity.
Plea Filed Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
The application has been filed under , which empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation into a . The complainant seeks the registration of an FIR against the father-daughter duo for alleged offences under three provisions of the : Section 196 (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), Section 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), and Section 353 (public mischief by making or publishing false statements or spreading false information).
According to the complaint, Nishu Azad’s social media posts targeted Hindu deities including Bhagwan Shiv, Bhagwan Shri Krishna, Maa Saraswati, and Maa Durga. The complainant contends that such content amounts to a deliberate attempt to wound the religious sentiments of the Hindu community and disturb .
Allegations of Deliberate Refusal to Remove Content
Sachdeva’s complaint asserts that she first gave Nishu Azad an opportunity to delete the offending posts, but the minor failed to do so. This inaction, the plea argues, constitutes a deliberate refusal to comply with the law. The complainant further states that those who host or allow such content to remain online—particularly on a minor’s account—must be held accountable.
“While disagreement with someone's faith is a personal choice, it does not confer a licence to mock, degrade or insult the Gods and worship of others,” the complaint reads. “Those who post such content, and those who allow a minor's account to keep it online after notice, must be prepared to face the .”
The plea also names Nishu Azad’s father as a guardian who allegedly failed to supervise the minor’s online activities, thereby enabling the continued dissemination of the objectionable material.
Legal Framework and Implications
The case brings into focus the intersection of free speech, religious sentiments, and the responsibility of social media users, particularly minors. Section 196 BNS is a cognizable, punishable with imprisonment of up to three years or fine or both. Section 299 similarly carries imprisonment of up to three years and fine. Section 353, which deals with public mischief, is also cognizable and punishable with imprisonment of up to two years.
The invocation of Section 175(3) BNSS is significant because it allows a private complainant to seek a direction from the Magistrate to the police to register an FIR when the police have failed to act on a complaint. This provision mirrors the earlier , and remains a crucial tool for citizens to initiate criminal investigations.
Legal experts note that the case will test the boundaries of permissible online expression under the new criminal codes. The BNS, which replaced the , retains the essential elements of the older provisions but with updated language. Courts have consistently held that the under is not absolute and may be reasonably restricted in the interest of , decency, and morality.
Impact on Social Media Regulation and Minor Liability
This plea also raises questions about the for online . Under the , a minor who commits an offence may be dealt with differently from an adult, but the law does not immunize them from legal consequences. The inclusion of the father as a co-respondent highlights the concept of parental responsibility in monitoring a child’s digital footprint.
For legal practitioners, the case serves as a reminder of the evolving landscape of cyber law and the increasing willingness of courts to entertain private complaints against online . The and subordinate courts have previously dealt with similar matters, often balancing the need to curb with the to express dissent.
Conclusion
As the hearing approaches, all eyes will be on how CJM Mridul Gupta addresses the procedural aspects of the plea. If the court directs the police to register an FIR, it could pave the way for a full investigation into the allegations. Conversely, the court may seek a response from the accused before taking a decision. Either way, the outcome will have implications for the regulation of on social media, particularly when it involves minors and religious sentiments. The legal community will be watching closely as this case unfolds under the newly enacted criminal codes.
