The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to curb the circulation of allegedly derogatory remarks made by influencer Nazia Elahi Khan against Prophet Muhammad.
A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe refused to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, observing that petitioners must first exhaust existing legal remedies.
Justice Narasimha orally remarked, “We understand. These Article 32 petitions are to serve something else,” signalling the court’s reluctance to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction directly.
The bench advised the petitioner to utilise statutory mechanisms, including the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009, instead of approaching the apex court.
Advocate Pulkit Agarwal, appearing for petitioner Mohd. Anas Chaudhary, argued that the matter was not about censorship but about addressing harmful content on social media that hurts religious sentiments.
He highlighted the viral spread of a podcast clip and the need for guidelines regulating offensive content targeting religious figures like Prophet Muhammad and Bhagwan Shri Ram.
The PIL sought directions to the Centre and social media platforms (YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and X) to remove such videos and frame regulations to maintain communal harmony. Multiple FIRs have already been registered against the influencer.
This marks the second rejection by the Supreme Court. On July 7, a vacation bench had similarly declined urgent hearing, urging the petitioner to first approach the police and follow due process.
The Court reiterated that disputes involving allegedly offensive online content should be handled through regular legal channels rather than direct constitutional petitions under Article 32.