The Supreme Court on Monday declined to grant an urgent hearing to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking action against an influencer accused of making derogatory remarks about Prophet Muhammad. A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Sheel Nagu turned down the plea for immediate listing when it was mentioned by advocate Rajat Kumar on behalf of Advocate-on-Record Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary.
No urgency found by the bench
The bench observed that the matter did not warrant an urgent hearing, as the alleged incident occurred some time ago and no immediate threat was demonstrated. The PIL was filed after a social media influencer purportedly made offensive comments about the Prophet, sparking outrage among certain communities.
Background of the petition
The petitioner sought directions to the authorities to register an FIR and take strict action against the influencer under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act. The plea argued that such remarks could disturb communal harmony and public order.
According to the petition, the influencer's statements were widely circulated on platforms like Instagram and YouTube, leading to complaints from various Muslim organizations. The petitioner claimed that inaction by law enforcement amounted to a failure of duty.
Court's stance on urgent listing
During the mention, the bench clarified that it does not entertain urgent listing requests for every PIL, especially when the alleged incident is not recent. The judges advised the petitioner to approach the appropriate high court first, as per the established legal procedure.
“This is not a matter that requires immediate intervention from this court. You may seek remedy before the concerned high court,” the bench reportedly remarked, as per court sources.
Legal experts weigh in
Legal analysts noted that the Supreme Court is cautious about entertaining PILs on sensitive religious matters without proper scrutiny. The court often directs petitioners to exhaust remedies at lower courts first.
The influencer, whose identity has not been officially disclosed, has not yet responded to the allegations. No official statement from the influencer or their representatives has been issued as of the time of reporting.
The Supreme Court's decision underscores its policy of not rushing into cases that may lack immediate urgency, even when they involve religious sentiments. The matter is now expected to be raised before a high court for initial consideration.
