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, stating that the petition appeared to be an attempt to “politicize” the case rather than pursue remedies available under the law.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe questioned the viability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, saying the petitioner must first use the remedies available under the criminal law and IT framework.
When the petitioner’s counsel argued that “there is no regulation of podcasts” and that all kinds of objectionable remarks are being made on these platforms, the bench remained unconvinced.
“Why did you file the Article 32 petition? You are taking such actions as are permitted by law. Why the Article 32 petition? It obviously means something else… You want to politicize it,” the bench members commented, refusing to accept the petition filed by lawyer Anas Chowdhury.
The court also noted that legal mechanisms already exist to deal with such grievances.
“Are the rules non-existent? The Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards to Prevent Public Access to Information) Rules, 2009…why not take recourse to the available remedies? We understand that this petition is intended to serve another purpose,” the bench observed.
After the court indicated that it was not inclined to consider this issue, the petitioner’s counsel requested leave to withdraw the petition. The court rejected the petition as withdrawn.
The petition, filed through advocate Ansar Ahmad Chaudhry, 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 Supreme Court bench refused an urgent hearing on the same petition while stressing that litigants must first exhaust their remedies before legal authorities instead of approaching the Supreme Court directly.
On July 6, a bench of Justices Ehsanuddin Amanullah and Shail Najoo stressed the need for confidence in the judicial hierarchy and criminal justice system before resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
“Trust the system. There is a procedure. If that procedure doesn’t work, we are here,” Justice Amanullah observed, warning against raising issues that would inflame communal sentiments.
The controversy erupted in June after clips of an audio broadcast featuring Khan and his host Divya Singh went viral on Instagram, sparking protests in several states. Since then several FIRs have 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 justified immediate criminal action in light of the Supreme Court’s previous directions on hate speech, including its rulings requiring prompt police action when speeches reveal crimes promoting communal hatred.
However, Khan has maintained in some public statements that the viral videos were created by artificial intelligence and are not authentic.
