New Delhi: Delhi’s Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) unit chief Saurabh Bharadwaj, along with Burari MLA Sanjeev Jha and AAP leader Adil Ahmad Khan, have been booked in a First Information Report (FIR) over a Christmas-themed political skit that allegedly outraged the religious feelings of the Christian community. The case was lodged on Thursday following a complaint by advocate Khushboo George, who contended that the skit mocked Santa Claus, a revered figure in Christian culture.

The skit, uploaded on social media platform X on December 17 and 18, depicts Santa Claus facing obstacles in celebrating Christmas due to the severe pollution crisis in Delhi. In the video, a man dressed as Santa Claus dramatically collapses in Connaught Place, while Bharadwaj quips in Hindi, “Oh my God, 376 sunke Santa behosh ho gaye” (“Santa fainted hearing that the AQI has hit 376”). The clip highlights the Air Quality Index (AQI) reaching hazardous levels, drawing attention to the city’s escalating pollution.

The complainant argued that the portrayal of Santa Claus in a derisive manner amounts to an insult to a religious and cultural icon during the Advent season, just days ahead of Christmas. She claimed that the mock CPR and dramatized collapse were disrespectful and mocked a symbol associated with Saint Nicholas and the Christmas festival. The FIR has been registered under Sections 299, 302, and 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code, which pertain to deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings and joint liability for such actions.

In response, Bharadwaj defended the skit, alleging that the FIR was politically motivated. He accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of attempting to deflect attention from the pollution crisis in Delhi and the contentious issue of the Aravalli hills. “An FIR has been filed against Santa Claus’s skit. Thanks to social media and your collective strength, the BJP is quite worried today. This is the power of social media—that the BJP government is being forced to respond on pollution,” Bharadwaj said on X.

He added that the skit was intended to draw attention to the serious issue of Delhi’s worsening air quality, bringing it to public consciousness in a way that reached a broad audience. “Through Santa Claus’s skit, we’ve taken the pollution issue to every single person, which has caused considerable trouble for both the Delhi and central governments,” Bharadwaj said.

The AAP leaders have consistently argued that the skit was a satire focused on public health and environmental concerns, rather than a deliberate attempt to mock religious sentiments. However, the complainant maintained that Santa Claus is not merely a cultural figure but a revered symbol worldwide, and any derogatory depiction could deeply offend Christian communities.

This case comes amid heightened scrutiny of social media content and public discourse in India, especially around religious symbols and festivals. The registration of the FIR has sparked debates about the balance between freedom of expression, political satire, and the protection of religious sentiments.

The controversy has drawn attention to the increasing use of creative and satirical media by political parties to highlight civic issues. In this instance, AAP used a recognizable cultural figure to underscore Delhi’s air pollution problem, a recurring and severe public health concern that has attracted national and international attention.

Legal experts note that while satire and commentary on public issues are generally protected under free speech provisions, any depiction perceived to insult or demean religious symbols can trigger action under provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Section 299 addresses deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, while Section 302 criminalizes uttering words with intent to wound religious feelings. Section 3(5) assigns joint liability where multiple parties are involved.

The FIR has intensified political rhetoric, with BJP officials highlighting the skit as evidence of AAP overstepping cultural sensitivities, while AAP leaders insist that the complaint is part of an effort to intimidate and suppress discussion about governance issues such as pollution and urban planning.

The episode underscores the complexities at the intersection of politics, media, and cultural sensitivities in India, particularly during festive seasons when public attention is heightened. It also raises questions about the role of satire and political commentary in engaging citizens on civic matters without infringing on religious sentiments.

As the inquiry progresses, the legal and political outcomes of this case will likely set precedents regarding the limits of creative expression and the handling of complaints involving religious icons. The case has already triggered a wider discussion on the responsibilities of political leaders in balancing satire with respect for cultural and religious sensibilities.