A Delhi Court directed police to file an FIR and investigate journalist Rana Ayyub’s tweets on Hindu deities and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, following allegations of mocking Hindu beliefs and promoting communal discord. The Court emphasized the seriousness of the accusations under IPC Sections 153A, 295A, and 505, calling for swift police action to ensure justice.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: A Delhi Court instructed the police to investigate journalist Rana Ayyub‘s tweets on X (formerly Twitter), which allegedly offended the religious sentiments of Hindus. These tweets were about Hindu deities and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Himanshu Raman Singh of Saket Court ordered the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) based on the complaint by lawyer Amita Sachdeva.
The Court stated,
“In view of the facts and circumstances, the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offences for which an FIR is warranted. Present SHO Cyber Police Station, South is directed to convert the contents of complaint as FIR and investigate the matter fairly.”
The Court noted that the allegations made by the complainant indicated possible violations under Sections 153A (hate speech), 295A (hurting religious sentiments), and 505 (statements leading to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This made it necessary for the police to look into the matter.
The Court remarked,
“The facts pleaded by complainant are such which necessitate intervention of State machinery in the form of police investigation.”
Initially, Sachdeva approached the Cyber Cell of Delhi Police with a complaint under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, claiming that Ayyub’s tweets insulted Hindu gods and promoted anti-India sentiments.
She stated that these tweets-
“reveal an agenda to systematically mock and demean Hindu beliefs, insult India, and spread communal discord.”
However, due to a lack of action by the police, Sachdeva filed a case in the Magistrate’s Court. The Cyber Cell submitted an Action Taken Report (ATR) in response, stating that only a non-cognizable offence could be made out, as Section 66A of the IT Act had been struck down by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal judgment.
Despite this, the Court highlighted the seriousness of the accusations and emphasized the need for a thorough police investigation.
The Court stated,
“Considering the gravity of the allegations, the Court is of the view that it is expedient to order investigation in the present matter in exercise of the judicial power under Section 156(3) CrPC.”
The matter has been listed for hearing today to ensure compliance with the Court’s order.
CASE TITLE:
Mrs. Amita Sachdeva Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Journalist’s
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
