Delhi HC Slams Rana Ayyub's 'Ravana Didn't Touch Sita' Tweet, Remarks on Hindu Deities, Savarkar

The Delhi High Court has slammed a series of tweets posted by journalist Rana Ayyub between 2013 and 2017, describing them as "highly derogatory, inflammatory and communal", according to a report in Bar and Bench.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav directed the Delhi Police and social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to take immediate action, emphasising that the matter required urgent coordination between the police, the central government, and the platform.

The court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva, who argued that the tweets insulted Hindu gods, including Lord Ram and Goddess Sita, as well as Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Savarkar. Sachdeva, who describes herself as a follower of Sanatan Dharma, said the posts deeply hurt her religious sentiments and were capable of inciting communal disharmony.

Among the tweets cited in the petition was a 2013 post: "Ravana didn't touch Sita even though he could. Ram didn't stand for Sita even though he should have. Ravana 1 Ram 0." Another tweet from 2014 quoted a couplet by Ali Sardar Jafri that referred to Sita and Draupadi.

In 2015, Ayyub tweeted: "So Veer Savarkar advocated rape as necessary component of Hindutva nationalism." A separate post questioned why Savarkar continued to be honoured, linking him to Nathuram Godse. A 2016 tweet, accompanied by an image of an injured boy, read: "Dear Indian army, am guessing this young kid was quite a threat to the sovereignty of India to be blinded for life."

The court issued notices to Ayyub, X, and the Delhi Police, asking them to file their responses by the following day. The case is scheduled for further hearing on 10 April. The judge also directed the police representative to convey necessary instructions to X Corp.

Sachdeva had previously approached a Saket trial court, which ordered the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Ayyub and a police investigation. Delhi Police later informed the High Court that the tweets in question were no longer available on X. However, the court made clear that the seriousness of the content warranted concerted action from all parties involved.