He directed the Cyber Police Station (New Delhi) to register a case: A practical reader guide

He directed the Cyber Police Station (New Delhi) to register a case: A practical reader guide

A Delhi court has directed the registration of a case against social media user Karishma Aziz over X posts and videos with allegedly derogatory references to Hindu religious and historical figures, even as police said they related to political and historical commentary, criticism, and satire. Police cited their inquiry and told the court they found “no evidence of deliberate attempt to incite communal disharmony.”

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. 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.

The court noted that the complaint concerned a series of posts over time, rather than an isolated statement. The court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Amish Devgan versus Union of India and observed that freedom of speech is constitutionally protected, but expressions intended to promote disharmony or made with deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings may attract penal consequences, depending on the context.

It said the question of whether the posts constituted protected political commentary, satire, criticism or historical opinion, or crossed the threshold of criminality, was “a matter requiring investigation. The court said it was satisfied that the complaint disclosed commission of cognisable offences requiring investigation.