"Comparison Directed At Officials, Not Religion": Delhi Court Refuses FIR Against CM Rekha Gupta Over Hanuman Remark

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Ashwani Panwar dismissed the application filed by Ram Niwas Sharma under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the provision that replaces Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by an order dated 6 November 2026.

Sharma had sought an FIR under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which punishes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings by insulting religion or religious beliefs.

The Court, however, kept the complaint case alive. Sharma is now to lead evidence under Section 223 BNSS, with cognisance and issuance of process to be decided thereafter. The matter is listed for examination of the complainant and his witnesses on 19 November 2026.

According to the complaint, the Chief Minister addressed officials and members of the public on 23 September 2025 at an official function at Kashmere Gate ISBT, held to inaugurate DTC bus services from Delhi to Baraut in Uttar Pradesh. Sharma alleged that, while "admonishing and threatening" officials for failing to work systematically, she "deliberately made sarcastic and contemptuous remarks mocking Lord Hanuman Ji".

The words complained of, are: "Ye jo hamare Dilli sarkar ke adhikari he ye sare Hanuman he. In hanumano ki jabtak puch me aag lagti hai to sari appni power yaad aati hai us se pehle bhul Jate he, Hanuman jee mujhe Isliye yaad aye kyonki ham marghat bale Baba ke dwar par baithe Hai"

Sharma read this as asserting that officials, like Hanuman, remember their powers only when their tail catches fire, and that they discharge their duties only under pressure from above. He said he was "deeply aggrieved" after watching a broadcast of the speech the next day on the Aaj Tak associate channel "TAK", and that he later extracted the video from YouTube with a certificate under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. In his view, the remarks were "an intentional insult to the religious faith of crores of Hindu devotees".

To establish the sacred status of the deity, the complaint relied on the Sankshipt Shivpuran, the Srimad Bhagwat, the Valmiki Ramayana and Goswami Tulsidas's Ramcharitmanas, citing the last for the proposition that Lord Hanuman is the Bhakta of Lord Rama and "discharged his self-imposed duties to Mata Sita and not as the servant".

Sharma said he had written to the SHO of PS Kashmere Gate, the DCP and the Commissioner of Police on 26 September 2025, sent a reminder on 9 October 2025 and filed an RTI application on the status of his complaint, but no action followed.

On the Court's direction of 3 October 2026, the SHO filed an Action Taken Report on 15 October 2026. The police said that the complete video showed the Chief Minister "praising about the work, commitment and performance of Delhi Government employees" and "comparing them positively with Lord Hanuman", and that the "overall tenor of the speech is appreciative".

The report went further and accused the complainant of editing the speech. It stated that he "has selectively omitted certain words and portions of the video at various places with the deliberate intention of distorting the context". It pointed to a line left out of the complaint, in which the Chief Minister said "Hanuman ji ki kripa se saare kaam ho rahe hain", which, according to the police, "itself shows the respect and praise which was intended by her". The police added that she had urged the cabinet ministers on stage to be motivated by Lord Hanuman and had said that a new fleet of buses to Uttar Pradesh was being inaugurated with his blessings.

Noting that Sharma had described himself as chairman of the RTI department of the Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee and as National Vice President of the All India Seemanchal Jan Vikash Parishad, the ATR said that the complaint "appears to be an orchestrated political vendetta" and that no cognisable offence was made out.

In his written reply to the ATR, Sharma argued that the Enquiry Officer had admitted the date, time, place, the identity of the proposed accused and the uttering of the remarks, and yet "improperly substituted an impermissible subjective opinion that no offense is made out in place of registering a mandatory FIR". The remarks, he contended, specifically ridiculed "the sacred episode of his tail being set on fire", outraging the religious feelings of the devotees of Lord Hanuman.

Relying on Section 173 BNSS and the Supreme Court's ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., he submitted that registration of an FIR is mandatory once information discloses a cognisable offence, that an ATR is "merely an executive report" which does not bind the Court, and that at the pre-cognisance stage the only question is whether the alleged facts disclose a cognisable offence. He also argued that the requirement of prior sanction under Section 217 BNSS (formerly Section 196 CrPC) bars only the taking of cognisance, not registration of an FIR or investigation. He further relied on Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and the Delhi High Court's decision in Dr. Ratan Lal v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (CRL.M.C. 7336/2023).

The ACJM began by restating the limits of the magistrate's power to order an investigation. An order directing registration of an FIR, the Court said, need be passed only if the Magistrate is satisfied that the information reveals a cognisable offence "as also about the necessity of police investigation for digging out of evidence neither in possession of the complainant nor could be procured without the assistance of the police". Such orders "need not be passed if the evidence to be led by the complainant is in his possession or can be produced by summoning witnesses".

Relying on the Delhi High Court's ruling in M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State (92 (2001) DLT 217), the Court held that the test under Section 175(3) "is not only whether any cognizable offence is made out or not but whether matter needs investigation for collection of evidence or not". The power, it said, ought to be exercised "primarily in those cases where the allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond the reach of the complainant or custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for some recovery of article or discovery of fact".

Applying that test, the Court noted that the police had procured the speech from the Directorate of Information and Publicity, Old Secretariat, Vidhan Sabha, and filed its transcript along with a certificate under Section 63(4)(c) BSA with the ATR. "Meaning thereby, the evidence which has allegedly hurt the religious feelings of the complainant is already on record and as such no investigation is required for digging out the same," the order reads.

The ACJM added that "the identity of the speaker, date, venue and words complained of are ascertainable from the material already collected", that the complainant had not identified any evidence "which is beyond the reach of the complainant or which necessarily requires police investigation", and that "the recording and relevant witnesses may be produced or summoned in the complaint proceedings".

On the substance of the allegation, the Court observed that the comparison drawn by the Chief Minister "appears to be directed towards the officials and their performance". It held that "at this stage it can be said that the material does not prima facie disclose the deliberate and malicious intention to insult religion or religious beliefs, an essential ingredient of Section 299 BNS".

Declaring itself "not satisfied that a direction for investigation is warranted under Section 175(3) BNSS", the Court dismissed the application. It granted the complainant liberty to lead evidence under Section 223 BNSS, and directed that "the aspect of cognizance and issuance of process shall be dealt with thereafter in accordance with law."