Rakia Imran
On 28th January 2025, the Delhi High Court directed the police to probe into journalist Rana Ayyub’s tweets on X on Hindu deities and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar that purportedly hurt and insulted the religious beliefs of Hindus. In response to a complaint filed by Lawyer Amita Sachdeva, Chief Judicial Magistrate Himanshu Raman Singh of the Saket Court directed the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) and initiate an official investigation. The Court underscored the importance of addressing the concerns raised in the complaint and instructed law enforcement to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law.
In its observations, the Court stated that the contents of the complaint prima facie pointed to offences under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with hate speech and communal disharmony, Section 295A, which criminalizes actions that deliberately insult religious beliefs, and Section 505, which penalizes statements that could incite public disorder. Considering the serious implications of these allegations, the Court held that a police investigation was warranted. “The facts pleaded by complainant are such which necessitate intervention of State machinery in the form of police investigation,” the Court observed.
A complaint was filed by Sachdeva initially under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act with the Cyber Cell of Delhi Police stating that Ayyub’s tweets demeaned Hindu Gods and spread anti-Indian sentiments. The complaint held that Ayyub’s tweets “reveal an agenda to systematically mock and demean Hindu beliefs, insult India, and spread communal discord.”
Citing police inaction as a reason, Sachdeva approached the Magistrate’s Court to seek legal intervention and ensure that a proper investigation was conducted. The Cyber Cell police, in their official Action Taken Report (ATR), concluded that Ayyub’s post did not constitute a cognizable offence. They further reasoned that since Section 66A of the IT Act, which was previously applicable to such cases, had been struck down by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal Judgement,2015, no significant legal basis existed for proceeding with the case. However, the Court, after examining the nature of the allegations, determined that they were of sufficient importance to merit a detailed police investigation.
The issue will be considered today to determine compliance with the court’s instructions.
Case Name: Mrs. Arnita Sachdeva v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
Case Number: 2704/2024
Bench: Chief Judicial Magistrate Himanshu Raman Singh