Patiala House Court Directs FIR Against Journalist Karishma Aziz Under Section 175(3) BNSS

Patiala House Court orders police to register an FIR against journalist Karishma Aziz for a series of alleged derogatory posts targeting Hindu religious figures, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and historical icons, holding that the complaint discloses cognizable offences requiring investigation.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, Sh. Mridul Gupta, on Thursday directed the SHO of Cyber Police Station, New Delhi, to register an FIR against journalist Karishma Aziz under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The order came on an application filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva, who alleged that Aziz published a series of posts and videos on social media platform X between February and April 2025 containing derogatory remarks against Hindu beliefs, saints, historical figures like Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and Veer Savarkar, and the Prime Minister.

The Allegations and the Police Stand

Sachdeva, an advocate practicing in the Supreme Court, submitted that she came across posts on February 9, 2025, that mocked a Hindu saint's spiritual views and disability, offending Hindu sentiments. Another post dated February 13 allegedly compared the Prime Minister to a dog, while videos from February 19 and 20 mocked Hindu warriors and glorified Mughal ruler Aurangzeb, distorting history and demeaning Hindu icons. Further posts from February 23 and 26 contained alleged insults against freedom fighter Veer Savarkar, labeling him a traitor, and made derogatory remarks targeting Hinduism and patriotic sentiments.

The Cyber Police, in its status report, acknowledged that the posts contained obscenity and statements targeting Hinduism but described them as political or historical commentary, criticism, and satire. The police stated that their inquiry found no evidence of a deliberate attempt to incite communal disharmony, considering the accused's freedom of speech.

Court's Reasoning: Prima Facie Cognizable Offence

CJM Gupta emphasized that at the stage of considering an application under Section 175(3) BNSS, the court is not required to meticulously evaluate the truthfulness of the allegations or record a conclusive finding on criminal liability. The only question is whether the complaint and supporting material disclose circumstances warranting police investigation.

"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 observed.

The court noted that the complaint refers to a series of posts over time, not an isolated statement, and that the authorship, operation, dissemination, and other electronic records of the social media account are matters requiring collection and preservation through investigative processes . "Such evidence is not wholly within the reach of the complainant," the court added.

Relying on the Supreme Court's observation in Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) that expressions intended to promote disharmony or made with deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings may attract penal consequences, the court held that the determination is necessarily contextual and depends on the content, circumstances, and likely impact.

Territorial Jurisdiction and Final Order

The complainant accessed and viewed the impugned posts from her chamber within the Supreme Court premises in New Delhi, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Patiala House Court. Accepting this, the court allowed the application and directed the SHO, Cyber Police Station, New Delhi, to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint and undertake investigation in accordance with law.

The court made it clear that no opinion is being expressed on the merits of the allegations at this stage. A compliance report must be filed before the court within one week.

Key Observations from the Judgment

"It is well settled that powers under Section 175(3) BNSS (earlier Section 156(3) Cr.P.C ) are to be exercised judiciously and not mechanically."

"The complaint and the material placed on record and the nature of evidence required to be collected, this Court is satisfied that the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offences requiring investigation."

"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 authorship and operation of the concerned social media account, the dynamics of the impugned uploaded videos and posts, their dissemination and other electronic records are matters requiring collection and preservation through investigative processes ."

This order underscores the court's role in ensuring that allegations of hate speech and communal disharmony on social media are properly investigated, even as the accused's right to freedom of speech remains a relevant consideration during the trial.