Also Read - Kerala High Court Seeks Expert Opinion on Substitutability of Patented Breast Cancer Drugs

The Court further observed that the petition appeared to be filed with the objective of sensationalising the matter rather than seeking a substantive legal remedy. It noted that the petitioner had not exhausted the regular criminal remedies available, including the multiple FIRs already registered against the influencer in connection with the alleged remarks.

The petition impleaded the Union of India’s Department of Home, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, major social media platforms namely YouTube, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and the influencer Nazia Elahi Khan. It sought three broad categories of relief: first, directions for the formulation and implementation of guidelines or regulations to curb the publication, circulation and dissemination of content that is deliberately derogatory or insulting towards revered religious figures such as Prophet Muhammad and Bhagwan Shri Ram; second, directions to the authorities to put in place adequate safeguards to prevent the intentional misuse of online platforms for outraging religious sentiments and promoting communal disharmony; and third, directions for the identification, removal and deletion of all defamatory videos and related posts from all social media platforms to avert any untoward incident arising from their wide circulation.

Also Read - Gujarat High Court Stays Divorce Decree After Husband Enters Second Marriage During Pendency of Wife's Appeal

Earlier, the Court had refused to list the petition for an urgent hearing, advising the petitioner to pursue the regular criminal route. The present dismissal reinforces that view, indicating that the Court considers the existing criminal proceedings and statutory provisions sufficient to address the alleged offence.

The case is recorded as MD Anas Chaudhary v Union of India, Department of Home, Principal Secretary, W.P.(Crl.) No. 255/2026. The observations of Justices Narasimha and Aradhe highlight the Court’s reluctance to expand the ambit of Article 32 to cover disputes over social media content where alternative remedies are available.

Also Read - Aadhaar Not Mandatory For Digi Yatra Registration If Other ID Proof Available: Kerala High Court's Prima Facie View