The Supreme Court declined an oral plea seeking immediate action against BJP Minority Morcha leader Nazia Elahi Khan over alleged remarks about Prophet Muhammad. The Court advised filing a proper petition, emphasising that sensitive matters must proceed through established legal procedures rather than informal requests.
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain an oral mentioning seeking immediate action against BJP Minority Morcha leader and social media influencer Nazia Elahi Khan over allegations that she made derogatory remarks about Prophet Muhammad during a podcast.
A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Sheel Nagu refused to pass any directions on the oral request and instead advised the petitioner to pursue the matter through the established legal process by filing a properly instituted petition before the Court.
The Bench stressed that the Supreme Court could not be approached through informal or “short-cut” methods in sensitive matters and reminded the counsel that judicial remedies must be sought in accordance with law.
Justice Amanullah said,
“Have faith in our system. Why cannot you file a petition and take it up. This is the problem. Every institution in the country is being shaken and people take up short circuit methods,”
During the brief hearing, Justice Amanullah observed that cases involving religious sensitivities require careful handling and should not be unnecessarily sensationalised. The Court underlined that if an offence has allegedly been committed, the first course of action should be to approach the competent local authorities instead of immediately seeking extraordinary intervention from the Supreme Court.
The Bench explained that legal mechanisms already exist to investigate such allegations and that parties should first exhaust those remedies before invoking the jurisdiction of the apex court.
Justice Amanullah observed,
“In sensitive cases you must understand the implications. If one person has done something unlawful then localise it and pin him down. But do not sensationalise it. If still it does not work then come to us. We agree that the case is grave but take the lawful course and not a short circuit,”
Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the oral mentioning, leaving it open to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition in accordance with law.
Background of the Controversy
The controversy involving Nazia Elahi Khan erupted after a video clip from one of her podcast appearances circulated widely across social media platforms. In the viral clip, Khan allegedly made remarks concerning Prophet Muhammad and certain aspects of Islamic history.
The comments drew sharp criticism from several Muslim organisations, religious leaders and members of the public, who alleged that the statements were offensive, derogatory and had hurt the religious sentiments of the Muslim community. The clip quickly gained widespread attention online, leading to protests, public condemnation and demands for criminal action against Khan.
As the controversy intensified, political reactions also followed, with various organisations calling for strict legal proceedings against the BJP Minority Morcha leader.
Following complaints over the alleged remarks, police authorities in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) registered two First Information Reports (FIRs) against Khan.
According to the allegations, her statements promoted communal disharmony and insulted a revered religious figure. The FIRs invoke provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) dealing with offences relating to promoting enmity, disturbing communal harmony and insulting religious beliefs.
The investigations are presently underway, and the police are examining the circumstances surrounding the podcast and the statements attributed to Khan.
Meanwhile, the BJP’s Jammu and Kashmir unit publicly distanced itself from the remarks attributed to Khan, clarifying that the statements reflected her personal views and not the party’s official position.
At present, the criminal investigation remains pending before the competent authorities. No court has yet examined the merits of the allegations or determined Khan’s criminal liability.
With the Supreme Court refusing to entertain the oral mentioning, any further challenge or request for judicial intervention will now have to be made through a formally instituted petition after following the prescribed legal procedure.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
