The order sits on a genuine free-speech fault line, and the court was candid about it. A lawyer sought an FIR over a series of posts she said insulted Hindu beliefs, revered figures and the Prime Minister; the cyber police, having examined them, reported that they were largely commentary, criticism and satire, with no evidence of a deliberate attempt to incite disharmony. The court did not decide who is right. It held only that whether the posts are protected expression or cross into criminality is itself a question for investigation, and ordered an FIR on that limited basis.
New Delhi: A Delhi court has directed the registration of an FIR against a user of X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, over a series of posts alleged to be derogatory to Hinduism, Hindu religious and historical figures and the Prime Minister, while expressly declining to express any opinion on the merits of the allegations.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Mridul Gupta of the Patiala House Courts allowed an application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking registration of an FIR and investigation.
The complaint
The application was filed by a lawyer, who alleged that the account holder had published a series of posts and videos between February and April 2025 that insulted Hindu religious beliefs and figures, the Prime Minister, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, and that some posts sought to glorify the Mughal ruler Aurangzeb while demeaning Hindu historical figures, allegedly tending to promote communal disharmony.
These are the allegations in the complaint. They have not been tested, and no offence has been established.
What the police reported
The most striking feature of the order is what the police themselves said. The Cyber Police Station, South, at Saket, filed a status report which, as recorded by the court, described the posts as containing obscenity, material directly targeting Hinduism, and political or historical commentary, criticism and satire. Crucially, the police stated that their inquiry had not found evidence of a deliberate attempt to incite communal disharmony.
That is a significant qualification, because the offences of the kind invoked in complaints of this nature ordinarily turn on intention, the deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings or to promote enmity between groups, rather than on offence taken by a reader.
The court’s reasoning
Notwithstanding the police report, the court held that an FIR was warranted, and it was careful to frame that conclusion narrowly. The power under Section 175(3) BNSS, it observed, must be exercised judiciously, but an FIR may be directed where a complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence and investigation is necessary to collect evidence beyond the complainant’s reach. At this stage, the court said, it was not required to meticulously evaluate the truthfulness of the allegations or to record any conclusive finding on criminal liability.
The court noted that the complaint was not confined to an isolated statement but referred to a series of posts published over a period, and it framed the central question in terms that acknowledge the free-speech dimension squarely:
“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 further observed that the authorship and operation of the account, the dynamics of the posts and videos, their dissemination and other electronic records were matters requiring collection and preservation through investigation, and that such evidence was not wholly within the complainant’s reach. On that footing, it held that the complaint disclosed the commission of cognizable offences requiring investigation, directed the Station House Officer of the cyber police station to register an FIR and investigate in accordance with law, and sought a compliance report within a week. It reiterated that it was expressing no opinion on the merits.
Why it matters
The order captures, in a single file, the tension that runs through most of India’s online-speech litigation: the line between expression that is offensive, even deeply so, to some, and expression that is criminal. Section 175(3) BNSS, the successor to Section 156(3) of the old Code, lets a magistrate direct the police to register an FIR where a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, and the threshold at that stage is deliberately low, a prima facie disclosure, not proof. That is why the order can direct an FIR even after a police report that leans the other way: the magistrate is not adjudicating guilt but deciding whether the matter needs investigating.
What makes this order more careful than many is that the court did not paper over the free-speech question or assume the posts were criminal. It named the possibility, in terms, that they may be protected political commentary, satire, criticism or historical opinion, and treated the classification itself as the thing to be determined. The police finding that there was no evidence of deliberate incitement will be central if the matter is later challenged, because the relevant offences require intent, and a post that is provocative or unpopular is not, without that ingredient, a crime. Courts, including recently, have quashed such FIRs where the malicious intent the statute demands was absent.
It should be stressed how little has been decided. An FIR is the start of an investigation, not a finding of guilt; the account holder has not been heard, may contest the FIR before the High Court, and is entitled to the presumption of innocence. The complaint reflects one citizen’s view of the posts, and the police report reflects a contrary preliminary assessment; which prevails is precisely what the investigation, and any proceedings that follow, will determine. This report does not reproduce the posts, which are the subject of that inquiry, and takes no position on whether they are offensive, protected or unlawful.
Case: Application under Section 175(3) BNSS seeking registration of an FIR, allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
Before: Chief Judicial Magistrate Mridul Gupta
Status: FIR directed to be registered by the Cyber Police Station, South, Saket; compliance report sought in a week. Allegations untested; no opinion expressed on the merits; presumption of innocence applies.