Delhi High Court Flags Rana Ayyub’s Posts as “Inflammatory”, Seeks Immediate Action

In a sharply worded hearing that signalled zero tolerance for allegedly inflammatory online speech, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday pulled up journalist Rana Ayyub over a series of controversial social media posts, describing them as “highly derogatory, inflammatory and communal,” and directing authorities to act within 24 hours to address the content.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, who was hearing the matter, made it clear that the situation demanded urgency and coordination, asking the Central Government, Delhi Police and social media platform X to “work in tandem” and “do the needful” without delay.

The Court’s insistence on a strict 24 hour timeline underscored its concern that continued inaction could aggravate communal sensitivities and undermine public order.

The proceedings arose from a petition filed by Amita Sachdeva, who alleged that Ayyub’s posts, dating back to 2016 and 2017, were deeply offensive to Hindu religious sentiments and promoted communal disharmony.

According to the petitioner, the tweets contained remarks targeting Hindu deities and revered historical figures, thereby infringing upon her fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution.

She argued that the continued availability of such content online amounted to a “continuing wrong,” causing ongoing and irreparable harm to her beliefs.

What appears to have significantly weighed with the High Court is the fact that the controversy is no longer confined to allegations alone. A magisterial court, by its order dated 25.01.2025, had already found that the posts prima facie disclosed cognisable offences and directed the registration of a First Information Report against Ayyub.

The offences invoked include serious penal provisions under the Indian Penal Code, Section 153A, which deals with promoting enmity between different groups; Section 295A, which penalises deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings; and Section 505, which pertains to statements conducing to public mischief.

Taking note of this, the High Court emphasised that the existence of a judicial direction for registration of an FIR heightened the need for immediate action.

The Court observed that when content has already been found, at least prima facie, to attract criminal provisions relating to communal harmony and public order, authorities cannot afford to remain passive spectators.

The Court also issued formal notices to the Centre, Rana Ayyub and X, and impleaded the Delhi Police as a necessary party, effectively bringing all relevant stakeholders under the judicial scanner.

The direction to “work in tandem” appeared to reflect the Court’s recognition that issues of online speech, particularly those with communal overtones require coordinated responses from both state authorities and digital intermediaries.

The petitioner further informed the Court that she had previously approached X’s internal grievance redressal mechanism as well as the Grievance Appellate Committee, seeking removal of the disputed content.

However, no effective relief was granted, reportedly on the ground that the matter was sub judice. This, she contended, left her with no option but to seek judicial intervention, especially as the content continued to remain accessible to the public.

The High Court’s intervention now places the spotlight firmly on the responsibilities of intermediaries and law enforcement agencies in dealing with allegedly unlawful online content.

By imposing a tight timeline and signalling continued judicial monitoring, the Court has indicated that delays, whether procedural or platform-driven, may not be acceptable in cases involving communal sensitivity.

The matter has been listed for further hearing within 48 hours, where the Court is expected to assess whether its directions have been complied with and to consider the next course of action.

With the Court stepping in so decisively, the message is clear: when online speech crosses into territory alleged to threaten communal harmony, swift accountability is not optional, it is expected.

Case Title: Amita Sachdeva v. Union of India & Ors.

With Inputs From: TOI

Read previous coverage 

FIR against Rana Ayyub for Hinduphobic and anti-national posts

Delhi Police awaits for data in Rana Ayyub Hate Speech Case