Appearing before a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, petitioner advocate Nizam Pasha argued that the video, circulated via the BJP Assam unit’s official X handle, vilifies Muslims, incites communal fear and violates constitutional principles of secularism. The court has scheduled a full hearing on October 27 to examine the legal issues.
According to the plea, the video was posted on September 15 and shows Muslim individuals taking over landmarks including tea estates, airport premises, government lands and historic sites. By September 18 it had attracted over 4.6 million views and thousands of reposts, the petition claims. The petitioners urge the apex court to order an FIR and immediate takedown of the content.
The plea contends the video violates electoral law—in particular the Representation of the People Act, which prohibits appeals on the basis of religion—and constitutes hate speech under the Indian Penal Code and related statutes. Legal counsel also asserted that while private citizens are legally barred from promoting communal hatred, a ruling party must adhere to an even higher standard of constitutional restraint.
The Supreme Court’s notice to X is significant, as it compels the platform to respond to content governance demands in a politically sensitive context. The involvement of both state machinery and central oversight frames this as a test of accountability in digital political communication.
Muslim organisations and civil society groups have filed counter-complaints, charging that the video was designed to polarise voters and disrupt communal harmony. Some have called for independent investigation by law enforcement agencies into those who produced and disseminated the video.
The BJP Assam unit has yet to issue a formal public statement responding to the court’s notice, though party sources privately maintain that the video is a campaign tool and deny it carries the intention of vilification. X has also not registered a public defence so far, though as a notice-recipient it will be required to respond in court.
Legal observers say the case could set a precedent on how courts treat AI-generated political content, particularly in election contexts. The court’s handling of demands for expedited takedown, platforms’ liability, and balancing free speech with protection against communal incitement will be closely watched.
Election law experts point out that enforcing constraints on religious appeals in campaign content has historically been challenging. While the law bans canvassing on religious lines, monitoring across multiple platforms—especially with synthetic media—presents a formidable regulatory gap.
Digital rights analysts also warn that acceptance of demands for takedowns could raise overreach risks, where platforms and courts become arbiters of political speech. The court will need to delineate clear principles for adjudicating content that walks the fine line between political messaging and communal provocation.