The remarks have drawn sharp criticism from legal experts and civil rights advocates, who say that they amount to incitement to violence and pose a grave threat to the rule of law
NEW DELHI — Ayodhya-based religious leader Jagadguru Paramhans Acharya has announced a reward of Rs 5 crore for anyone who kills Bollywood actor Aamir Khan, following reports that the actor married his long-time partner, Gauri Spratt.
According to reports, Aamir Khan and Gauri Spratt married in an intimate registered ceremony at the actor’s Bandra residence in Mumbai earlier this month. The ceremony was reportedly attended by close family and friends. Aamir Khan was previously married twice — first to Reena Dutta and later to filmmaker Kiran Rao.
The opposition to the interfaith marriage did not come from Spratt’s family. It came from hardline groups. The priest’s statement, in which he openly called for violence, has been widely criticised as an attempt to spread communal hatred.
The bounty offer follows a vitriolic attack on the actor by Maharashtra Minister and BJP leader Nitesh Rane, who called Aamir Khan the “brand ambassador of love jihad” over his marriage to Spratt. Endorsing Rane’s remarks, Paramhans alleged that Aamir Khan had married Hindu women to promote “love jihad” and claimed the reward money would be handed over to the attacker’s family. He also said he would bear the legal expenses of the perpetrator.
Rane also urged Hindu audiences to reconsider watching the actor’s films, dragging both his professional career and personal relationships into a communal controversy.
Even before the issue took a political turn, Bajrang Dal workers had staged protests against Aamir Khan’s marriage and burnt his effigy. Members of the organisation accused him of deliberately marrying Hindu women and demanded action against him, despite the marriage being a consensual union between two adults.
The remarks have drawn sharp criticism from legal experts and civil rights advocates, who say that publicly offering money to kill an individual amounts to incitement to violence and a grave threat to the rule of law. They argue that such statements undermine constitutional guarantees of life, liberty and personal choice, including the freedom of consenting adults to choose their life partners irrespective of religion.
Critics have also questioned the silence of law enforcement authorities, noting that open calls for violence cannot be dismissed as mere rhetoric. They argue that failure to act promptly risks normalising hate speech and emboldening vigilante elements, particularly in cases involving interfaith relationships.
