Hindu man handed death sentence over 'blasphemy' for remarks made in opposition to derogatory comment on Lord Shiva

Case ID : 30aa889 | Location : Saudi Arabia | Date of Incident : Tue, 14 July, 2026

Case ID : 30aa889

Saudi Arabia

14 July, 2026

Hindu man handed death sentence over 'blasphemy' for remarks made in opposition to derogatory comment on Lord Shiva

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked over 'Blasphemy'

Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim

Hate speech against Hindus

Anti Hindu subversion and prejudice

Case Summary

In Saudi Arabia, a Hindu man, Sivarasa Anojan, was sentenced to death over a social media comment he posted in response to a derogatory post by a Muslim man targeting Lord Shiva. Anojan deleted his post shortly afterwards and issued a public apology, yet the authorities proceeded against him with the death penalty. No comparable action was reported against the Muslim man whose original post targeting the Hindu deity had triggered Anojan’s response. According to reports, the Al-Ahsa Criminal Court had earlier sentenced him to five years in prison with a fine of three million Saudi riyals around seven crores). The Saudi prosecution later appealed against the sentence, which led to the death penalty. The case began with an exchange on social media after an incident during the annual Pada Yatra pilgrimage to the Kataragama Murugan temple in Sri Lanka. A dog named Subramani, after Lord Murugan, accompanied pilgrims for about 450 kilometres, survived on a vegan diet, and became a familiar presence along the route. The pilgrimage was overshadowed when a Muslim man from Kalmunai was filmed kicking the dog. The footage circulated widely, and he was arrested on an animal cruelty charge and later released on bail after apologising. The episode set off increasingly hostile exchanges online, with Hindu and Muslim users trading insults about each other's religions. A Facebook account belonging to a Muslim woman posted a derogatory comment about Lord Shiva in Tamil. Anojan, then working in Saudi Arabia, replied in Tamil. According to Hindu Munnani ( Organisation) Chennai State Spokesperson A.T. Elangovan, Anojan also raised questions about Prophet Muhammad during the exchange. That comment was translated into Arabic and brought to the attention of the Saudi authorities, becoming the basis of the proceedings against him. The victim, Sivarasa Anojan, was sentenced on 15 July, 2026 by the Al-Ahsa Criminal Court to five years' imprisonment and a fine of three million Saudi riyals, equivalent to around ₹7 crore, the maximum penalties available under the first paragraph of Article 6 of Saudi Arabia's Anti-Cyber Crime Law. The court ordered the confiscation of the digital device used in the case. It also ordered the closure of the social media account. The defence appealed against the sentence and sought a reduction in punishment. The appeal argued that Anojan did not intend to diminish the status of Prophet Muhammad or offend the sanctity of religion. It further stated that he deleted the Facebook comment within about ten minutes and apologised for it. The Saudi prosecution also appealed against the original sentence. It sought to have the case dealt with under Sharia law. The appellate court accepted the prosecution's appeal. It treated the conduct as an offence involving insulting and defaming Prophet Muhammad. The appellate court then replaced the earlier sentence with the death penalty. The lower court's three-million-riyal fine was removed. The court upheld the orders to close the social media account and confiscate the device. The death sentence was subsequently brought to the attention of the Sri Lankan authorities. Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath told Parliament that the appeal filed on Anojan's behalf had been rejected. He also said that the Saudi prosecution had separately appealed against the original sentence, resulting in the enhanced punishment. Questions were also raised over who represented Anojan. The appeal names the Saudi attorney Adlan Abdullah Al-Subaie of Hsn Alansah Company for Lawyership and Legal Consultations, a firm engaged by the Sri Lankan authorities, but the victim’s family said a different lawyer appeared in court and that they were never given that lawyer's identity or contact details. Following the appellate ruling, Anojan's family sought government intervention. Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayake met Anojan's parents on 21 September, 2026. He said that the government would pursue legal and diplomatic channels. The Sri Lankan government also planned to send a delegation to Saudi Arabia. The delegation was to carry a letter from the President seeking clemency from the Saudi King. The government later said it would cover Anojan's legal costs in Saudi Arabia. It also stated it would support further legal proceedings. President's Counsel Faiszer Musthapha and President's Counsel Upul Kumarapperuma agreed to assist with the case. They also planned to travel to Saudi Arabia to meet Anojan's legal representatives and the relevant authorities. Rishad Bathiudeen, leader of the All Ceylon Makkal Congress, met Anojan's family at their home before calling for a compassionate resolution, and said his party had begun collecting signatures from MPs for an appeal to King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. Following the death sentence, members of Hindu Munnani submitted a petition at the Sri Lankan Deputy High Commission in Nungambakkam, Chennai. They sought the withdrawal of the death sentence awarded to Anojan. Hindu Munnani State Spokesperson A.T. Elangovan said the organisation would meet the Sri Lankan Deputy High Commissioner and submit the petition. He said the organisation was seeking intervention in Anojan's case.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of: Attack not resulting in death. Within it, the sub-category selected is: Attacked over 'Blasphemy'. Blasphemy essentially refers to the desecration of anything that is held sacred/holy to a group of people. However, for religious supremacist groups, the elements of ‘blasphemy’ are ever-changing, shifting and expanding – leading to infringement on the rights of other religious groups, freedom of speech and expression, threats and even physical violence. There are instances where blasphemy is also used as a dog whistle to target Hindus owing to intrinsic animosity towards Hinduism. There are several instances where stating truths as mentioned in the non-Hindu doctrine itself has led to unmitigated violence against Hindus. There have also been instances where non-Hindus have themselves created a ‘blasphemous’ situation, like placing a Quran in a temple, to use it as an excuse to attack Hindus. Essentially, Blasphemy charges are often made up and/or are used to shut down any form of criticism of non-Hindu faiths and as a tool to target Hindus. Any physical violence over Blasphemy charges against Hindus is foundationally based on animosity toward Hindus and their faith owing to religious supremacist ideologies; therefore, such attacks would be documented as religiously motivated hate crimes under this category. The other selected sub-category is: Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victims. In several cases, Hindus are attacked for opposing religiously motivated crimes being committed against a fellow Hindu or simply for voicing an opinion opposing radical elements, who either have in the past or continue to persecute Hindus. In such cases, the initial attack against the victim, against which the Hindu was trying to defend the victim, would also need to be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime. Since the initial crime itself was religiously motivated and the subsequent crime of attempting to save the victim or speaking against the radical elements ends up inviting a violent attack, it would also be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. The other primary category selected in this case is Hate speech against Hindus. Within it, the sub-category selected is Anti- Hindu subversion and prejudice. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Media plays a specific and overarching role in perpetuating prejudicial attitudes towards a community owing to unfair, untrue coverage and/or misrepresentation/misinterpretation, selective coverage and/or omission of facts of/about issues affecting a specific religious group. This type of bias can dehumanise the victim group, making it easier for others to justify harmful actions against them, which aligns with the objectives of hate speech laws aimed at preventing such harm. It is often observed that the media takes a prejudicial stand against the Hindu community, driven by their need to shield the aggressor community, which happens to be a numeric minority; however, it is the one perpetrating violence against Hindus. For example, the media is often quick to contextualise religiously motivated crimes against Hindus, omit or misrepresent facts that point towards religiously motivated hate crimes, justify and/or downplay religiously motivated hate crimes, or simply present fake news to stereotype Hindus. Such media bias leads to the denial of persecution and is often used to dehumanise Hindus, leading to justification for violence against them. For example, the media covered several fake allegations of Hindus targeting Muslims and forcing them to chant Jai Shree Ram. Most of these cases were proved false and fabricated after police investigation. These fake news reports were subsequently never retracted or clarified. Such fake news led to the justification of violence and dehumanisation of Hindus based on the argument that since Hindus targeted Muslims and forced them to chant Jai Shree Ram, the dehumanisation of Hindus and violence against them was par for the course and merely a retaliation. Such media bias leads to a prejudicial portrayal of Hindus and offers a justification for violence against them and therefore is considered hate speech under this category. This case was documented because it demonstrated how an accusation of insulting Islam was used against a Hindu individual after he responded to a derogatory comment directed at Lord Shiva, the revered Deity whom Hindus worship and hold sacred. At the outset, the religious confrontation was not initiated by the Hindu victim. A Muslim woman had first posted the derogatory comment against Lord Shiva, after which the Hindu victim responded in the spur of the moment. His response was therefore made in the context of an attack on his faith rather than as an independent attempt to provoke a religious conflict. It is important to note that, upon realising his mistake also deleted his comment within approximately ten minutes. The case's significance lay in the sharply unequal treatment of religious offence. A derogatory comment against Lord Shiva had initiated the religious exchange, yet the Hindu respondent became the person subjected to severe punishment. The same system that treated words concerning Islam and Prophet Muhammad as sufficiently serious to attract the death penalty did not extend comparable consideration to the religious sentiments of Hindus when the target was Lord Shiva. This reflected an unequal standard; the sanctity of one faith received exceptional protection, while an insult against a revered Hindu Deity did not receive equivalent regard. The disparity became even more significant because the person who initiated the derogatory exchange faced no comparable consequence. Anojan, who had reacted to the insult and subsequently deleted his comment and apologised, was instead subjected to imprisonment, a fine of around ₹7 crore and ultimately a death sentence. The punishment therefore did not merely address the words he had posted. It placed the entire punitive burden on the Hindu participant in a religious dispute that he had not initiated. The severity of the punishment also had a profound impact on the victim because Anojan was a migrant worker who had travelled to Saudi Arabia to earn a livelihood and support his family. A financial penalty of around ₹7 crore placed an extraordinary burden on a man who had gone abroad to earn a living. Such a penalty could consume his entire working life and severely affect his family's financial security. The subsequent escalation to a death sentence went further by placing his very life at stake. Moreover, the case demonstrated how a blasphemy-style accusation could transform a brief and impulsive response into an extreme religious offence. Anojan did not continue or repeat his comment and deleted it shortly afterwards. Yet his reaction to an insult against his faith was treated with the harshest possible consequence. As seen in several cases, this law is often used as a tool of oppression and violence, leading to false accusations, mob justice, and social ostracisation of Hindus. This law, which is liberally used in Muslim-majority countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh to attack minority Hindus residing there, has become increasingly common in India too, where bloodthirsty Islamists often twist and use these laws to settle their scores with Hindus. The misuse of blasphemy laws against Hindus is often motivated by religious prejudice. Hindus are targeted because of their religious identity. The case therefore went beyond an ordinary dispute over offensive language on social media. It reflected a situation in which a Hindu man responded to a derogatory attack on a sacred Hindu Deity, corrected his own conduct by deleting the response, and nevertheless faced an extraordinary escalation of punishment, while the person who initiated the religious provocation did not face comparable action. The victim's religious identity, the nature of the provocation, the unequal treatment, and the severity of the consequences made the religious dimension central to the case. It was therefore documented under the Tracker's categories concerning attacks arising from blasphemy, retaliation for opposing religious radicalism, and hostility towards Hindus. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records the incident date based on when the victim’s ordeal began rather than when the incident was reported by the media. The available sources did not specify the exact date the Facebook comment was posted. Therefore, 15 July 2026, the date on which the Al-Ahsa Criminal Court sentenced Sivarasa Anojan, has been selected as the indicative incident date for documentation purposes only.