The Supreme Court on 6 July 2026 refused to grant urgent listing to a public interest litigation that sought directions against alleged derogatory remarks made against Prophet Muhammad. The bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Sheel Nagu considered the matter after it was mentioned by Advocate Rajat Kumar on behalf of the petitioner.
The petition was filed by Advocate-on-Record Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary and impleaded the Union of India, the Department of Home, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, YouTube, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and the influencer Nazia Elahi Khan. The PIL sought several reliefs including the framing of guidelines to prevent the circulation of content insulting revered religious figures, the removal of defamatory videos from social media platforms and the imposition of safeguards to avoid outrage of religious sentiments.
According to the submissions made during the hearing, Nazia Elahi Khan had allegedly made objectionable comments about Prophet Muhammad and his family during a podcast in June 2026. Clips of the podcast reportedly went viral on various social media platforms, leading to the registration of multiple first information reports against the influencer.
Advocate Rajat Kumar submitted that the remarks could create communal disharmony and urged the court to intervene urgently. In response, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah questioned the practice of bypassing local authorities and directly approaching the apex court. He asked the petitioner whether a case had been filed with the police and emphasized that the police machinery exists for such complaints.
Justice Amanullah stated, “Have you filed a case? The police is there. Have faith in our system. We are only the Apex, we are here to monitor. It is also an eye-opener for us whether our lower functionaries are working or not? If everything is short-circuited here, they will also raise hands that okay...that is what is happening...all institutions are going haywire because everything comes from the top.” He further added that the issue could be raised before the court if the normal procedure did not yield appropriate action.
The judge acknowledged the sensitivity of the subject and said that he personally found the allegations grave. However, he stressed the importance of following the prescribed legal procedure and cautioned against sensationalising the matter. He advised that if one person has committed a mistake, the full force of the law should be applied to pin him down, rather than resorting to public agitation.
Justice Sheel Nagu concurred with the observations made by his colleague. The bench ultimately declined to list the matter for urgent hearing and directed the petitioner to first approach the police authorities and allow the investigative process to take its course.
The court’s decision underscores the principle that the Supreme Court acts as a monitor of the legal system and encourages litigants to exhaust available remedies before seeking its intervention. The order also serves as a reminder to lower functionaries to perform their duties diligently, so that public confidence in the institutional framework is maintained.