Ayodhya-based religious leader Jagadguru Paramhans Acharya has triggered widespread condemnation after announcing a ₹5-crore reward for anyone who kills actor Aamir Khan and offering to fund the attacker’s legal defence.
Paramhans Acharya, the head of Tapasvi Chhawani, made the threat while endorsing Maharashtra minister Nitesh Rane’s allegations over Khan’s marriage to Gauri Spratt. A video carrying the remarks was posted on X on July 14, prompting demands for immediate police action and stronger protection for the actor.
The cleric claimed that Khan’s marriages represented “love jihad”, a politically charged expression used by Hindu nationalist groups to allege a conspiracy by Muslim men to marry and convert women from other faiths. No evidence supporting such a conspiracy in Khan’s relationships has been presented.
Paramhans Acharya said the promised amount would be delivered to the family of anyone who carried out the killing. He also declared that he would bear the person’s legal expenses, turning a communal allegation into an explicit public solicitation of violence against a named individual.
The statement followed remarks by Rane, a Bharatiya Janata Party leader and Maharashtra minister, who called Khan the “brand ambassador of love jihad” and urged Hindu audiences to think carefully before watching his films. Rane questioned why the actor had married women from outside his faith and sought to link his personal relationships with a broader religious campaign.
Khan rejected the allegations, saying religion had never determined his choice of partners. He clarified that Spratt is Christian, not Hindu, and had not converted to Islam. He also said his former wives, Reena Dutta and Kiran Rao, retained their respective religious identities throughout their marriages.
The actor said each marriage was registered as a civil union and described his family as inclusive. He pointed to interfaith marriages within his wider family and expressed dismay at the increasingly communal interpretation of personal relationships.
Khan and Spratt married at a private ceremony at his Mumbai home on July 5. Their relationship became public in 2025, when Khan introduced Spratt during an interaction with journalists. Spratt is a Bengaluru-born entrepreneur and fashion professional who has worked in the beauty sector.
The couple’s marriage quickly became the subject of political and religious scrutiny. Besides Rane’s comments, a cleric issued a religious decree questioning the marriage under Islamic law. Khan’s clarification that Spratt did not convert directly contradicted claims that the union involved religious coercion.
The death threat has intensified concerns over the normalisation of violent language by influential religious and political figures. Lawyers and civil liberties advocates said publicly offering money for murder could attract provisions relating to criminal intimidation, abetment, conspiracy and statements capable of disturbing communal harmony.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita contains penalties for abetting offences, threatening injury and promoting hostility between religious communities. Whether specific provisions are invoked would depend on the precise wording, intent, context and assessment of investigating authorities.
No confirmed announcement of a first information report against Paramhans Acharya was available when the controversy escalated. The absence of an immediate official response drew criticism online, where users questioned whether an equivalent threat against a politician or religious leader would have been treated with similar restraint.
The controversy also placed pressure on the Uttar Pradesh administration, as the statement was made by a prominent religious figure based in Ayodhya. Critics called for authorities to determine whether the promise constituted a credible inducement to violence rather than dismissing it as provocative rhetoric.
Paramhans Acharya has previously attracted attention through confrontational statements on religious and political issues. His position at Tapasvi Chhawani gives his comments visibility beyond social media, particularly among groups involved in religious mobilisation in Ayodhya.
Rane has repeatedly used the expression “love jihad” while discussing interfaith relationships and has advocated measures targeting alleged religious conversion. Opponents accuse him of using communal rhetoric to police private choices and deepen divisions between communities. His supporters argue that he is raising concerns about coercive conversions, though no such allegation has been substantiated in Khan’s marriage.
The row has renewed debate over the responsibility of news organisations and social platforms when distributing explicit threats. While reporting such remarks serves a public-interest function, unrestricted circulation of violent statements can amplify the speaker’s message and increase risks for the intended target.
