Delhi court orders FIR against Karishma Aziz over derogatory remarks against PM Modi, Savarkar and Hinduism

A Delhi court on Thursday directed the Delhi Police to register an FIR against social media user Karishma Aziz over posts and videos allegedly containing derogatory remarks against Hindu religious beliefs, historical figures and comparing Prime Minister Narendra Modi to a dog. 

Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Mridul Gupta of the Patiala House Court said the allegations made against Aziz disclose commission of cognisable offences which require investigation. 

“Accordingly, the application under Section 175(3) BNSS is allowed.  SHO, Cyber Police Station, New Delhi, is directed to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint and undertake investigation in accordance with law,” the Court ordered. 

Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita grants a magistrate the power to direct the police to register an FIR and investigate a cognisable offence. 

Judge Gupta passed the direction while allowing the plea filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva. 

According to the complaint, Sachdeva came across several posts between February and April 2025. These allegedly included remarks mocking a Hindu saint's spiritual views and disability, comparing the Prime Minister to a dog, mocking Hindu warriors and historical figures, and portraying Aurangzeb favourably while allegedly demeaning Hindu icons.

The complaint also alleged that Aziz had described Savarkar as a traitor and made other remarks targeting Hinduism and patriotic sentiments.

In its response, Delhi Police stated that while the posts contained obscenity and targeted Hinduism, they are in the nature of political or historical commentary, criticism and satire.

The police said that its enquiry had not found evidence of a deliberate attempt to incite communal disharmony.

However, the Court said that at the stage of considering an application under Section 175(3) BNSS, it was not required to conclusively determine the truthfulness of the allegations or criminal liability.

It noted that the complainant had placed screenshots, transcripts and links concerning a series of posts published over a period of time.

Whether the posts amounted to protected political commentary, satire, criticism or historical opinion, or crossed the threshold of criminality, was a matter requiring investigation, the court said.

Judge Gupta added that he had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations. 

[Read Order]