A Delhi Court has ordered the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against journalist Rana Ayyub for allegedly insulting Hindu deities and spreading anti-India sentiments through her controversial posts on social media platform ‘X’. The ruling follows a complaint filed by Advocate Amita Sachdeva, who accused Ayyub of using her substantial public profile to incite religious hatred, defame Hindu religious figures, and undermine national unity.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Himanshu Raman Singh of Saket Courts issued the order, noting that the complaint contained prima facie evidence of cognisable offences punishable under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), and 505 (statements conducing public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court observed that the gravity of the charges warranted state intervention, directing the Cyber Police Station South to convert the contents of the complaint into an FIR and conduct a thorough investigation.
#BREAKING | Delhi Court Orders FIR Against #RanaAyyub for Insulting Hindu Deities & Spreading Anti-Bharat Sentiments
A Delhi court has directed police to file an FIR against Rana Ayyub over derogatory posts from 2016-17, accusing her of insulting Hindu deities, inciting… pic.twitter.com/dpjgP04R6S
— Organiser Weekly (@eOrganiser) January 28, 2025
Allegations of Religious Insult and Anti-India Rhetoric
The complaint from Advocate Sachdeva, filed in November 2024, accuses Ayyub of engaging in a sustained campaign of online hate speech, specifically targeting Hindu deities and national pride. The case highlights several inflammatory social media posts dating from 2013 to 2017, which Sachdeva claims were designed to insult Hindu religious figures and foster religious discord. One of the key allegations revolves around a post where Ayyub allegedly described Veer Savarkar as advocating “rape as a necessary component of Hindutva nationalism.” Sachdeva vehemently disputed this claim, labeling it both baseless and inflammatory. She contended that Ayyub’s words were intended to malign not only Savarkar but also the very ideology of Hindutva, which holds significant importance for millions of Hindus.
The complainant also cited Ayyub’s derogatory remarks against Bhagwan Ram in a 2013 tweet. Ayyub reportedly mocked Ram’s character, saying, “Ravana didn’t touch Sita even though he could. Ram didn’t stand for Sita even though he should have. Ravana 1 Ram 0.” Such remarks, according to Sachdeva, were a direct affront to Hindu sentiments, undermining a sacred religious figure revered across India. Ayyub’s mocking tone, Sachdeva argued, was a deliberate attempt to insult Hindu beliefs and provoke religious animosity.
Furthermore, in a 2014 post, Ayyub allegedly trivialised the suffering of Hindu figures like Mata Sita and Draupadi by making statements that were seen as disrespectful to their traditional roles in Hindu mythology. Ayyub’s comments were described by the complainant as a violation of religious sanctity and decency, pushing the boundaries of acceptable discourse.
Anti-India sentiment and criticism of the Indian Army
The complaint also draws attention to Ayyub’s posts aimed at disparaging the Indian Army. In a tweet from 2016, Ayyub reportedly mocked the Indian Army’s actions, writing, “Dear Indian Army, am guessing this young kid was quite a threat to the sovereignty of India to be blinded for life.” This remark, according to the complainant, was not only irresponsible but also undermined the credibility of the Indian Armed Forces, which are held in high esteem by the nation. The post was seen as an attempt to tarnish the reputation of the army and sow distrust among the public.
In her complaint, Sachdeva argued that Ayyub’s posts were not isolated incidents but part of a larger, consistent pattern of behaviour aimed at vilifying India, its institutions, and its people. The posts, she asserted, were not only inflammatory but also dangerous, inciting hostility and division in an already diverse and sensitive society.
Court’s intervention and the need for police investigation
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, Sachdeva claimed that no action had been taken by the authorities after she filed her initial complaint with the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal in November 2024. After several follow-ups with the Cyber Police Station in South Delhi, Sachdeva turned to the courts, seeking intervention to ensure that Ayyub was held accountable for her posts.
In response to this, Chief Judicial Magistrate Himanshu Raman Singh expressed concern over the inaction of the police and emphasised the need for judicial intervention. The court observed that the facts outlined in Sachdeva’s complaint pointed to serious offences that could not be dismissed as mere non-cognisable offences. The judge noted, “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) Cr.P.C.” The Court further stressed that the complainant would not be in a position to collect evidence independently, thus necessitating police involvement.
On January 27 2025, following the court’s direction, the Cyber Police Station South registered the FIR against Ayyub, marking a significant step in the case. The FIR includes charges under Sections 153A, 295A, and 505 of the IPC, which are serious offences that could lead to severe legal consequences. The investigation is expected to uncover further details about Ayyub’s online activity and its potential impact on communal harmony.
