A Delhi court has instructed the police to register a case against social media user Karishma Aziz. This action follows Aziz’s posts and videos on X that allegedly contain derogatory references to Hindu religious and historical figures. Despite the court’s directive, police indicated that their investigation found no evidence of a deliberate attempt to incite communal disharmony, suggesting that the content was related to political and historical commentary, criticism, and satire.
Chief judicial magistrate Mridul Gupta (Patiala House Courts) passed the order on Thursday after Amita Sachdeva, a lawyer, moved the court for a case against Aziz. He directed the Cyber Police Station (New Delhi) to register a case and investigate the allegations. The court directed that a compliance report be filed within one week. The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh, noting that the police cannot refuse to register a case merely by assessing the reliability or credibility of information disclosing a cognizable offence. It added that the question was whether the complaint and supporting material disclosed circumstances warranting a police investigation.
“At the present stage, this court is not required to meticulously evaluate the truthfulness of the allegations or record any conclusive finding regarding criminal liability,” the court said.
Court Orders Investigation into Social Media Posts
A court has ruled that a complaint regarding a series of social media posts warrants further investigation. The posts in question are alleged to either represent protected political commentary or to cross into criminal territory. The court emphasized that this distinction requires thorough examination.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Amish Devgan versus Union of India, the court reiterated that while freedom of speech is constitutionally protected, expressions that incite disharmony or are intended to offend religious sentiments can lead to legal consequences, depending on the context.
The court concluded that the complaint revealed potential cognizable offenses that necessitate an investigation.
