The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a public interest petition seeking action against social media influencer Nazia Elahi Khan over her alleged derogatory remarks about Prophet Muhammad, observing that the plea appeared to be an attempt to “politicise” the issue instead of pursuing remedies available under the law.
A bench of justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe questioned the maintainability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, saying the petitioner ought to first invoke the remedies available under the criminal law and the Information Technology framework.
When counsel for the petitioner argued that there was “no regulation of podcasts” and that all kinds of objectionable remarks were being made on such platforms, the bench remained unconvinced.
“Why have you filed the petition under Article 32? You take such actions as permissible in law. Why Article 32 petition? Obviously, it means something else…you want to politicise it,” remarked the bench, refusing to admit the petition filed by advocate Md Anas Chaudhary.
The court further pointed out that statutory mechanisms already exist to deal with such grievances.
“Are the rules not there? The 2009 Rules (Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009)…why don’t you take recourse available? We understand this petition is intended to serve some other purpose,” the bench observed.
After the court indicated that it was not inclined to entertain the matter, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the plea. The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
The petition, filed through advocate Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, had sought directions for registration of criminal proceedings against Khan for allegedly making blasphemous and inflammatory statements against Prophet Muhammad and for removal of the impugned content from social media platforms, including YouTube, Facebook and X.
The order comes days after another bench of the Supreme Court declined an urgent hearing on the same petition while stressing that litigants should first exhaust remedies before the statutory authorities instead of approaching the apex court directly.
On July 6, a bench of justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Sheel Nagu had underscored the need to trust the judicial hierarchy and the criminal justice system before invoking the Supreme Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction.
“Have faith in the system. There is a procedure. If that procedure does not work, we are here,” Justice Amanullah had observed, cautioning against sensationalising issues capable of inflaming communal passions.
The controversy erupted in June after clips from an Instagram podcast featuring Khan and host Divya Singh went viral, triggering protests in several states. Multiple FIRs have since been registered against Khan, including in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, while complaints have also been lodged elsewhere.
The petition alleged that Khan’s remarks hurt the religious sentiments of the Muslim community, threatened communal harmony and warranted immediate criminal action in light of the Supreme Court’s previous directions on hate speech, including its rulings requiring prompt police action where speeches disclose offences promoting communal hatred.
Khan has, however, maintained in some public statements that the viral videos were AI-generated and not authentic.
