Don't short circuit procedure: Supreme Court on plea for action on BJP leader's remarks about Prophet Muhammad

The Supreme Court of India recently underscored the critical importance of procedural adherence and judicial hierarchy by refusing to entertain an oral mentioning seeking immediate action against a political leader for alleged derogatory remarks against Prophet Muhammad. A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Sheel Nagu directed the counsel to follow the prescribed legal course, including filing a formal petition and approaching local authorities first. The Court emphasized that sensitive matters should not be sensationalized and that bypassing established legal channels undermines the entire judicial system, reiterating the principle of exhaustion of remedies and the apex court's role as a monitor rather than a court of first instance.

In a significant pronouncement on judicial discipline and the proper recourse for legal grievances, the Supreme Court of India recently declined to entertain an oral mentioning for urgent action against a BJP Minority Morcha leader, Nazia Elahi Khan, concerning alleged derogatory remarks about Prophet Muhammad. The Court's refusal, delivered by a Vacation Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Sheel Nagu, was not a dismissal of the gravity of the allegations, but a firm directive to adhere to established legal procedures.

The incident highlights a persistent challenge in the Indian legal landscape: the tendency of litigants to bypass lower courts and statutory authorities, seeking direct intervention from the apex court, particularly in sensitive matters. Justice Amanullah's stern remarks against "short-circuiting" the system and sensationalizing such issues serve as a crucial reminder to legal practitioners and the public alike about the foundational principles of India's hierarchical judicial structure. This article delves into the Supreme Court's rationale, the relevant legal framework governing hate speech, and the broader implications for procedural integrity in the Indian justice system.

The legal framework in India addresses hate speech and religious insults through various provisions, primarily aimed at maintaining public order and communal harmony. Historically, key provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) included Section 153A, which penalizes promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, etc., and acts prejudicial to maintaining harmony; Section 295A, which punishes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings; and Section 505, dealing with statements conducing to public mischief, including those promoting enmity between classes.

However, with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), these provisions have been replaced and are effective from July 1, 2024. Section 153A IPC is now BNS Section 196, Section 295A IPC is BNS Section 299, and Section 505 IPC is BNS Section 353. These new sections largely retain the essence of their IPC predecessors, criminalizing acts that promote disharmony, outrage religious sentiments, or cause public mischief. The practice of "oral mentioning" in the Supreme Court, where counsel briefly brings urgent matters to the attention of a bench for immediate listing, has also seen recent reforms. Effective December 1, 2025, the Supreme Court Registry has significantly regulated oral mentionings, limiting them and requiring formal written submissions for urgent matters, with specific exceptions for highly time-sensitive issues like anticipatory bail or habeas corpus petitions.

The Supreme Court's refusal to entertain the oral mentioning concerning Nazia Elahi Khan's alleged remarks is a clear affirmation of the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies and the principle of judicial restraint. Justice Amanullah explicitly stated, "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." This statement underscores the Court's concern over the increasing tendency to bypass the established legal hierarchy, which includes local police and lower courts.

The Court's directive to first approach local authorities and file a formal petition aligns with the well-settled principle that superior courts generally do not intervene when effective alternative remedies are available. While the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies is not an absolute bar, it is a rule of policy, convenience, and discretion, ensuring that specialized tribunals and statutory mechanisms are given primacy. The present case, involving alleged hate speech, would typically warrant investigation and action under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, specifically BNS Sections 196, 299, and 353, which empower local police to register First Information Reports (FIRs) and initiate criminal proceedings.

Justice Amanullah further cautioned against sensationalizing sensitive matters, advising counsel to "localise it and pin him down" through lawful courses. This reflects the judiciary's apprehension that direct intervention by the apex court in every sensitive issue, without prior engagement of lower functionaries, could lead to chaos and undermine the efficacy of the entire justice delivery system. The recent stricter rules regarding oral mentionings, which limit such requests to specific, exceptionally urgent categories, reinforce the Court's commitment to formal procedural channels. The present matter, while grave, did not fall within these narrow exceptions, further justifying the Court's insistence on due process. The Court's role, as articulated by Justice Amanullah, is to "monitor" the system, not to act as the initial forum for every complaint.

The Supreme Court's stance in the matter concerning Nazia Elahi Khan's alleged remarks sends a clear message to legal practitioners: procedural integrity is paramount, even in cases of significant public interest and communal sensitivity. Practitioners are reminded of their obligation to guide clients through the established legal hierarchy, commencing with local authorities and formal petitions, before seeking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the apex court.

This ruling reinforces the judiciary's commitment to preventing the "short-circuiting" of the system, which can lead to inefficiency and undermine the foundational principles of justice. It serves as a vital precedent for managing public interest litigation and direct access to the Supreme Court, emphasizing that while the issues may be grave, the path to justice must always be lawful and procedurally sound. Practitioners should meticulously follow the rules for filing petitions and exhausting remedies, ensuring that the judicial system can function effectively at all levels.