Delhi Court: Nishu Azad FIR Sought Over Hindu Deities Posts

• A Delhi court has requested a police response to a plea seeking an FIR against Nishu Azad and Sanjay Azad.
• The plea alleges objectionable social media content concerning Hindu deities.
• Advocate Amita Sachdeva filed the complaint, citing four posts from September 2023 to August 2026.
• The FIR is sought under new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Sections 299 and 196, plus the IT Act.
• The next court hearing for this matter is scheduled for January 2027.

This case represents an early judicial application of specific sections within the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, a new criminal code that has replaced the Indian Penal Code.

A Delhi court has directed the Delhi Police to submit a response regarding a plea that seeks the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against student-activist Nishu Azad and her father, Sanjay Azad. The complaint centers on allegations of social media content containing references deemed objectionable concerning Hindu deities. Chief Judicial Magistrate Mridul Gupta issued the directive, requesting an action taken report from the police on the matter.

The court's order marks a significant step in the proceedings, with the next hearing scheduled for January 2027. This extended timeline indicates the potentially complex nature of the allegations and the legal process involved in assessing the content in question. The judicial scrutiny follows a formal complaint lodged by advocate Amita Sachdeva.

Advocate Amita Sachdeva initiated the legal action, having previously brought her concerns to the Delhi Police. Her complaint specifically references four distinct social media posts, which were allegedly uploaded between September 2023 and August 2026. These posts reportedly contained objectionable content pertaining to prominent Hindu deities, including gods Shiva and Krishna, and goddesses Saraswati and Durga.

Sachdeva's plea asserts that these Nishu Azad social media posts were deliberately published and have remained publicly accessible, despite her requests for their removal. The advocate is seeking the registration of an FIR under several key legal provisions. These include Sections 299, which addresses outraging religious feeling, and 196, concerning the promotion of enmity and hatred, both derived from the recently enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Additionally, the complaint invokes relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act, targeting the nature of the objectionable content shared online.

This case represents an early judicial application of specific sections within the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, a new criminal code that has replaced the Indian Penal Code. The plea specifically invokes BNS Sections 299 and 196, which are designed to address offenses related to religious sentiments and the incitement of animosity. Section 299 criminalizes acts intended to outrage religious feelings by insulting religion or religious beliefs, while Section 196 targets the promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, and other similar bases.

The inclusion of these new BNS provisions, alongside existing IT Act provisions, underscores the evolving legal landscape concerning online speech and its potential impact on communal harmony. The court's eventual interpretation and enforcement of these sections will provide crucial insights into how the new code will be applied to social media liability and the scope of what constitutes 'outraging religious feeling' in the digital sphere.

The individuals named in the complaint, Nishu Azad and Sanjay Azad, have previously been subjects of public attention due to unrelated incidents. Notably, another right-wing influencer, Swatantra Bhardwaj, publicly claimed in a video that he had physically assaulted Sanjay Azad. This alleged incident occurred during protests organized by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) at Jantar Mantar in Delhi.

Following his public admission, Swatantra Bhardwaj was subsequently arrested in connection with the alleged assault. He was later released on interim bail. This prior incident, while distinct from the current social media content allegations, provides a broader context to the public profile and contentious environment surrounding the individuals involved in the present legal proceedings.

This case signals early judicial application of the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) sections 299 and 196 concerning religious sentiments and online content. Lawyers should monitor its progression to understand how courts will interpret and enforce these provisions, particularly regarding social media liability and the scope of 'outraging religious feeling' under the new criminal code.

Source: Original reporting via court documents and public records.