On 27th January, the Cyber Police Station South, New Delhi, lodged an FIR against propagandist and alleged journalist Rana Ayyub following directions from a Delhi Sessions Court. The FIR was filed based on a complaint by Advocate Amita Sachdeva under Sections 505, 295A, and 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). OpIndia accessed the court order and the complaint filed by Advocate Sachdeva.
FIR details
OpIndia accessed copy of the FIR registered by the police. According to the FIR, the complainant has accused Rana Ayyub of using her platform to insult revered Hindu deities, malign Indian unity, and incite hostility against India, including disparaging the Indian Army. The FIR highlighted that the case was registered following directions from the Delhi Sessions Court (Saket, South District) of Chief Judicial Magistrate Himanshu Raman Singh.
What the complainant said
In her complaint, Advocate Sachdeva said that Rana Ayyub had made multiple derogatory social media posts on X (formerly Twitter) between 2013 and 2017. These posts insulted revered Hindu deities, spread anti-India sentiments, and incited religious disharmony. She argued that such posts, amplified by Ayyub’s public profile, were provocative and intended to disturb communal harmony.
Advocate Sachdeva cited several examples of Ayyub’s posts to highlight her constant misleading claims and anti-Hindu rant. For instance, in a post against Veer Savarkar and Hindutva, Ayyub wrote, “So Veer Savarkar advocated rape as a necessary component of Hindutva nationalism.” Advocate Sachdeva categorically called the post baseless and inflammatory, adding that it sought to defame a revered historical figure and attack the Hindutva ideology, which is central to millions of Hindus.
In another post from 2013, Ayyub mocked Bhagwan Ram and wrote, “Ravana didn’t touch Sita even though he could. Ram didn’t stand for Sita even though he should have. Ravana 1 Ram 0.” Advocate Sachdeva said that this post demeaned Bhagwan Ram, glorified Ravana, and insulted the core beliefs of Hindus.
In another post from 2014, Ayyub, according to Advocate Sachdeva, trivialised the ordeals of revered figures like Mata Sita and Draupadi and wrote, “Gareeb Sita ke ghar pe kab tak rahegi Ravan ki hukmrani, Draupadi ka libas uske badan se kab tak chhina karega.” The complainant argued that this statement crossed all boundaries of decency and mocked the sanctity of Hindu traditions.
Rana Ayyub also published posts criticising the Indian Army. In 2016, she wrote, “Dear Indian Army, am guessing this young kid was quite a threat to the sovereignty of India to be blinded for life.” The complainant said that this post was an irresponsible and disparaging comment, designed to undermine public trust in the Indian Armed Forces.
Advocate Sachdeva pointed out that despite filing a complaint with the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal on 11th November 2024 and repeatedly following up with the Cyber Police Station in South Delhi, no action was taken. The inaction of the police, coupled with the gravity of the offences, prompted her to approach the court.
What the court said
On 25th January, Chief Judicial Magistrate Himanshu Raman Singh of Saket Courts, South District, New Delhi, observed that the allegations presented in Advocate Sachdeva’s complaint disclosed prima facie cognisable offences under Sections 505, 295A, and 153A of the IPC. The court said, “From the facts of the case, prima facie cognisable offences are made out under sections 153 A (punishment for promoting enmity between different groups on the ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.), 295 A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) and 505 (statements conducing public mischief) of the IPC.”
The court noted that state intervention was necessary due to the gravity of the allegations, as the complainant would not be able to collect evidence independently. “The facts pleaded by the complainant are such which necessitate intervention of the state machinery in the form of police investigation and the complainant (advocate) would not be in a position to collect evidence,” the court added.
The court directed the Station House Officer (SHO) of the Cyber Police Station South to file an FIR and conduct a fair investigation into the matter. The court further emphasised the need for expedient action. Following the court order, the FIR was registered by the concerned police station. The matter is listed for hearing on 28th January 2025.
