Delhi Police Steps Up Action in the Rana Ayyub Case.

Delhi Police Begins Disciplinary Action Against Officers Who Claimed Rana Ayyub’s ‘Derogatory & Inflammatory’ Posts on Hindu Deities and Veer Savarkar Were ‘Unavailable’.

Hridya Bharti | HENB | New Delhi | July 27, 2026:: In a significant development in the case concerning journalist Rana Ayyub’s allegedly derogatory social media posts, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against two Delhi Police investigating officers after a court found lapses in the status reports submitted during the investigation. The posts, it was found, had only been withheld in India and remained accessible globally.

An official communication issued by the Office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (South District), dated May 29, 2026, states that disciplinary action has been initiated against Inspector Pradeep Kumar (No. 822/SD) and Sub-Inspector Uday Singh (No. D-3163) after lapses were identified in the reports submitted before the court.

The letter, addressed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South District, Saket Courts, was filed in response to the court’s order dated May 14, 2026, seeking a report on the action taken against the investigating officers.

“Lapses have been found on the part of Inspector Pradeep Kumar… and SI Uday Singh… Hence, disciplinary action has been initiated against both the above erring police officials,” the communication states.

The Delhi Police has also directed the Station House Officer (SHO) of the Cyber Police Station to ensure the investigating officer’s presence before the court and submit an updated status report on the investigation.

Court Questioned Earlier Status Reports

The disciplinary action follows proceedings before the Delhi High Court in a petition filed by Advocate Amita Sachdeva, who alleged that the investigating officers repeatedly submitted incorrect status reports stating that the impugned posts made by Rana Ayyub on X were “not available.”

According to the petitioner, these submissions were factually incorrect because the posts continued to remain accessible globally and had only been withheld within India following specific directions issued by the Delhi High Court.

The petitioner further alleged that the investigating officers presented the same incorrect position before the trial court on multiple occasions, prompting judicial scrutiny.

Delhi High Court Called for Immediate Action

On April 8, 2026, while hearing Sachdeva’s petition seeking the removal of the posts, the Delhi High Court observed that the matter required urgent consideration.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav directed the Union Government, X Corp, Delhi Police, and Rana Ayyub to file their responses and instructed the Delhi Police to transmit the relevant documents to X.

During the hearing, the Court observed:

“Action is necessary in view of the highly derogatory, inflammatory and communal tweets by respondent no. 4 (Ayyub), pursuant to which even an FIR is directed to be registered…”

The High Court directed that the matter be listed for further hearing while considering the plea seeking removal of the posts.

What Did Rana Ayyub Post?

In her complaint, Advocate Amita Sachdeva alleged that journalist Rana Ayyub published multiple objectionable posts on X (formerly Twitter) between 2013 and 2017. According to the complaint, the posts were disrespectful toward Hindu deities, carried anti-India overtones, and had the potential to incite communal tensions. She further argued that, given Ayyub’s public influence, the content was inflammatory and capable of disturbing social harmony.

To support her allegations, Sachdeva referred to several specific posts, asserting that they reflected a pattern of misleading assertions and remarks critical of Hindu beliefs.

In one post from 2015, Ayyub allegedly made derogatory remarks about Veer Savarkar, writing:

“So Veer Savarkar advocated rape as necessary component of Hindutva nationalism.”

According to the complaint, this post remains accessible on X.

In another post from 2013, Ayyub allegedly made derogatory remarks about Lord Rama, writing:

“Ravana didn’t touch Sita even though he could. Ram didn’t stand for Sita even though he should have. Ravana 1 Ram 0.”

The complaint states that this post was still accessible on X at the time of publication.

In a 2014 post, Ayyub allegedly mocked Sita Mata and Draupadi, writing:

“Gareeb Sita ke ghar pe kab tak rahegi Ravan ki hukmrani, Draupadi ka libas uske badan se kab tak chhina karega.”

According to the complaint, this post also remained available at the time of publication.

Rana Ayyub also published posts criticizing the Indian Army. In one such post from 2016, she wrote:

“Dear Indian Army, am guessing this young kid was quite a threat to the sovereignty of India to be blinded for life.”

According to the petitioner, these posts are covered by the court’s directions seeking their removal.

Disciplinary Proceedings Initiated

The latest communication from the Delhi Police marks the first official acknowledgment that lapses were found in the investigation and that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the officers concerned.

More Pressure on Rana Ayyub

The latest development in the Delhi Police proceedings is likely to increase pressure on journalist Rana Ayyub. Advocate Amita Sachdeva has continued to pursue the matter before the courts, arguing that the impugned posts insult Hindu religious beliefs and hurt national sentiments. She has consistently sought legal action, including the removal of the posts and accountability for those responsible for handling the investigation.

Rana Ayyub is now under investigation by the Delhi Police over allegations relating to her social media posts. She faces allegations of delivering unapologetic hate speech against Hindu Dharma, its revered figures, Hindutva leaders, and making remarks that, according to the complaint, hurt national sentiments. The outcome of the proceedings will ultimately depend on the findings of the investigation and the decisions of the competent courts, and any punishment would be subject to the applicable law.
…
_Inputs from the Commune and OpIndia.