Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Amita Sachdeva has filed a complaint at Delhi’s Cyber Police Station against student activist Nishu Azad and her father, Sanjay Azad, alleging that posts from Nishu’s X account contained derogatory references to Hindu deities.
Filed on September 5, the complaint seeks an FIR under Sections 299 and 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with applicable provisions of the Information Technology Act. Sachdeva has also requested preservation of the alleged posts and related digital evidence, including platform records, IP logs and device information.
She claims four posts between September 2023 and August 2026 referred objectionably to Bhagwan Shri Krishna, Maa Durga, Maa Saraswati and Bhagwan Shiv. The complaint also names Nishu’s father after Sachdeva claimed Nishu had identified herself as a minor.
However, these remain allegations and do not establish criminal liability. Reports have differed on whether police have already registered an FIR, with no clear public confirmation from Delhi Police available at the time of writing.
Four Posts Under Scrutiny
According to the complaint, Sachdeva has objected to four posts published through the X account @Nishuazad11 over nearly three years. The material allegedly includes references to Bhagwan Shri Krishna in a September 8, 2023 post around Janmashtami; an April 9, 2025 post concerning Maa Durga; a July 11, 2025 post referring to Maa Saraswati; and an August 18, 2026 video that allegedly mocked the worship of Bhagwan Shiv and made disparaging references to devotees.
Sachdeva has said she came across the posts while at the Supreme Court in New Delhi and felt that the content was offensive to her religious beliefs. She has alleged that the material remained publicly accessible despite her efforts to have it removed. According to her complaint, she first contacted Nishu and, through her, her father, asking that the posts be taken down before approaching the police.
Sachdeva has also publicly referred to contacting Nishu about at least two of the posts. Her position is that the disputed material crossed the line from criticism or political expression into alleged insult of religious beliefs. The precise wording, context and intent behind the posts, however, remain important questions for investigators to establish.
The complaint seeks action under Sections 299 and 196 of the BNS. Section 299 relates to deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs, including through electronic means. Section 196 concerns, among other things, promoting enmity between groups on grounds including religion and includes electronic communication within its scope.
Sachdeva has also invoked the Information Technology Act and asked authorities to preserve electronic evidence connected with the alleged posts. This includes the posts and accompanying media, along with relevant platform records, IP logs and device-related information. She has sought preservation of the digital trail so that the material can be examined as part of any investigation.
Why Her Father Is Named
Sanjay Azad has been named alongside his daughter because Sachdeva has stated in her complaint that Nishu has identified herself as a minor. She has therefore asked the police to examine the role of her father as her guardian, including whether he had any responsibility for the account or the alleged posts and whether he was aware of her online activity.
Being named in a complaint, however, does not establish that Sanjay Azad authored, uploaded or controlled the posts. His alleged role would have to be independently established through evidence. Similarly, the filing of a complaint does not mean that the allegations against Nishu have been proved.
The development comes amid wider attention on the Azad family. Sanjay Azad has separately been involved in a case linked to an alleged assault during a Cockroach Janta Party protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. Delhi Police had arrested social-media influencer Swatantra Bhardwaj in connection with the alleged assault. The two matters are separate, and there is currently no basis to suggest that the cyber complaint and the assault case form part of the same legal proceeding.
The timing has nevertheless drawn public attention because the complaint against Nishu and her father emerged after Bhardwaj’s arrest. For now, the two cases should be viewed independently: one concerns alleged physical assault, while the other centres on alleged religiously offensive social-media content.
There is also some uncertainty surrounding the latest police action. While a report by NewsDrum stated that Delhi Police had registered an FIR against Nishu and her father, other reports continued to describe Sachdeva’s submission as a complaint seeking registration of an FIR.
Some coverage noted that there was no publicly available Delhi Police statement clearly confirming the FIR. Until an official police document or statement is available, it would be premature to state definitively that an FIR has been registered or that any offence has been established.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Social media has made it easier than ever for people to express political, ideological and personal views, but it has also made disagreements around religion particularly sensitive. Any allegation of deliberate religious insult deserves to be examined through due process rather than through online outrage, while freedom of expression must also be protected within the boundaries of the law.
In this case, the allegations against Nishu Azad and her father should be investigated fairly, with the complete context of the disputed posts examined before conclusions are drawn. At the same time, public discourse around faith should leave room for dignity, empathy and coexistence, especially in a diverse country such as India.
Also read: Amazon Prime Air Plane Overruns Miami Runway, Hits Vehicles And Catches Fire
