New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Monday declined to grant an urgent listing for a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding alleged derogatory remarks made by a political leader and influencer against Prophet Muhammad.
A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Sheel Nagu refused to entertain the oral mentioning for an immediate hearing on the matter. The court instead directed the petitioner to approach local authorities and move a formal petition through the prescribed legal channels.
The matter was brought before the bench by Advocate Rajat Kumar on behalf of Advocate-on-Record Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary. The counsel submitted that the alleged remarks had the potential to disturb communal harmony and incite public passion. The remarks in question were reportedly made by Nazia Elahi Khan, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Minority Morcha leader and social media influencer.
According to the reports, the alleged derogatory comments were made during a podcast in June and subsequently went viral across various social media platforms. Following the circulation of these clips, the police in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region had already registered two FIRs against Khan for allegedly hurting the sentiments of the Muslim community. Despite these existing local legal actions, the petitioner sought the intervention of the apex court for broader directives.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, presiding over the bench, questioned the growing tendency of litigants to bypass standard procedures and approach the Supreme Court directly. He remarked that every institution in the country is being shaken when people choose "short-circuit methods" instead of trusting the lower functionaries. The bench emphasised that the apex court is primarily there to monitor and that citizens must have faith in the entire judicial system.
He further cautioned the counsel against sensationalising sensitive matters unnecessarily. He also noted that as officers of the court and citizens of India, advocates must understand the ramifications and implications of such sensitive cases. The bench stated that if an individual has committed an unlawful act, the law provides the means to "pin him down with the full force of the law" through proper jurisdictional forums.
Addressing the petitioner’s concerns about communal disharmony, Justice Amanullah acknowledged the gravity of the case but maintained that the constitution and statutes provide the right to check such issues at the local level. He advised the petitioner to file a case before the jurisdictional court or approach the police authorities first. The court added that the doors of the Supreme Court remain open 24x7 if the established procedure fails to produce appropriate results.
The PIL specifically sought directions for the Union of India’s Department of Home and other authorities to frame and implement guidelines to regulate content on digital and social media. It urged for measures to curb the publication and dissemination of content that is deliberately derogatory or offensive towards revered religious figures, including Prophet Muhammad and Bhagwan Shri Ram. The petition also called for the immediate removal and deletion of all such defamatory videos and posts from platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and X.
Furthermore, the plea requested that authorities take steps to ensure adequate safeguards are in place to prevent the intentional misuse of online platforms for outraging religious sentiments. The respondents impleaded in the petition included the Department of Home, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY), and major social media companies.
The court observed that if every matter is brought directly to the top, it may lead to the failure of other institutions in the sphere of society. For the present, the bench declined the request for an urgent listing and told the counsel that the apex court would only step in if the normal legal procedure does not work.
Case title: MD ANAS CHAUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF HOME PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WP(Crl) Diary No. 39051/2026.
