Saudi court spares Hindu man sentenced to death over Prophet remarks

The Supreme Court’s decision removed the immediate threat of execution from Sivarasa Anojan’s case. That is the biggest change. He was sentenced to death after a Facebook comment was treated as blasphemy against Islam and Prophet Muhammad. The ruling followed diplomatic and legal pressure from Sri Lanka.

The court appeal was filed on October 11, after the Saudi Court of Appeal imposed the death sentence on September 17. A Sri Lankan legal delegation travelled to Riyadh, while the ambassador, politicians, and religious leaders pressed for intervention. The Supreme Court set aside the death sentence on October 13.

Anoj​​an’s case is not fully resolved. Diplomatic sources told Newswire that authorities have not confirmed whether he must serve the original five-year prison sentence and pay the three-million-riyal fine. They also have not confirmed whether the entire conviction has been overturned. His legal position therefore remains uncertain.

Blasphemy generally means words or actions considered insulting or disrespectful toward a religion, its beliefs, or sacred figures. In Anojan’s case, Saudi authorities treated a Facebook comment about Prophet Muhammad as insulting Islam. The article describes the case as a blasphemy prosecution and says the death sentence was imposed under Sharia law.

The comment appeared during an online argument after footage showed a Muslim man kicking a dog near Hindu pilgrims in Sri Lanka. Another user had posted derogatory remarks about a Hindu deity. Anojan replied in Tamil, then deleted the comment and posted an apology video. Screenshots were nevertheless circulated and reached his Saudi employer.

Saudi courts first imposed a prison term and fine, then the Court of Appeal sentenced him to death for blasphemy. The article does not explain every legal test used. It does establish that the comment was treated as a religious insult under Saudi law.

The case changed dramatically through several court decisions. On July 15, the Al-Ahsa Criminal Court sentenced Anojan to five years in prison and fined him three million Saudi riyals over the Facebook comment. The sentence was described as arising under Saudi Arabia’s anti-cybercrime law.

On September 17, the Saudi Court of Appeal overturned that original punishment. It instead sentenced him to death for blasphemy under Sharia law. Sri Lanka responded with diplomatic and legal action. Officials met his family, offered legal support, and sent a special delegation to Riyadh. Politicians and religious leaders also sought mercy.

An appeal was filed before the Saudi Supreme Court on October 11. The court set aside the death sentence on October 13. The article does not say that every part of the conviction disappeared. It says authorities still had not confirmed whether Anojan would serve the original sentence or whether the whole conviction was overturned.

Anoj​​an’s initial financial penalty was three million Saudi riyals. The amount was imposed alongside a five-year prison sentence by the Al-Ahsa Criminal Court on July 15. The case concerned his Facebook comment, which Saudi authorities treated as an offense under the country’s legal system.

The article converts three million riyals to approximately $800,000. That figure shows the fine’s exceptional size compared with an ordinary personal penalty. It also explains why the sentence created serious financial pressure for Anojan and his family, although the article does not provide their income or financial circumstances.

The fine’s current status is unclear. The Saudi Court of Appeal overturned the original five-year sentence and three-million-riyal fine when it imposed the death sentence on September 17. After the Supreme Court removed the death sentence, officials had not confirmed whether the original conviction, including the fine, remained in force.

The immediate death penalty has gone, but other consequences may remain. The original Al-Ahsa Criminal Court sentence included five years in prison and a three-million-Saudi-riyal fine, approximately $800,000. If that conviction or sentence remains legally effective, Anojan could still face those penalties.

The article records serious personal strain during the case. His devices were seized, his social media accounts were deleted, and he was reportedly assaulted by a cellmate. His brother told the BBC that people in Sri Lanka contacted Anojan’s Saudi employer after screenshots of the deleted comment circulated.

The final position is unresolved. Diplomatic sources told Newswire that Saudi authorities had not confirmed whether Anojan would serve the original prison sentence or whether the entire conviction had been overturned. The next practical question is therefore the scope of the Supreme Court’s ruling, including any remaining imprisonment or fine.

Sri Lanka’s response used several channels at once. The president and foreign minister led diplomatic efforts, while the ambassador in Saudi Arabia visited Anojan and engaged Saudi authorities. The government also assured his family that it would seek a pardon and cover legal fees. These efforts kept the case active after the death sentence.

Six Sri Lankan MPs wrote to Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister seeking mercy. Buddhist and Hindu religious leaders submitted memoranda urging intervention. A legal delegation, including senior lawyers and an attorney, travelled to Riyadh. It pursued an appeal filed before the Saudi Supreme Court on October 11, following the Court of Appeal’s death sentence.

The Supreme Court set aside the death sentence on October 13, after these sustained diplomatic and legal efforts. The article does not attribute the outcome to one person or group alone. It presents the appeal, embassy work, political requests, religious memoranda, and government action as a combined campaign, while leaving Anojan’s remaining legal status uncertain.

Sharia law is a broad Islamic legal and ethical framework drawn from religious sources and principles. Its interpretation and application vary across countries and courts. The article gives only a brief reference: it says the Saudi Court of Appeal sentenced Anojan to death for blasphemy under Sharia law.

The same case also involved written legislation. The Al-Ahsa Criminal Court initially sentenced Anojan under Saudi Arabia’s anti-cybercrime law, imposing five years in prison and a three-million-riyal fine. The Court of Appeal later overturned that punishment and imposed death under the blasphemy ruling. This shows how different legal grounds appeared at different stages.

In practice, religious legal principles and written statutes can operate within the same national legal system, with courts deciding which provisions apply. The article does not explain Saudi Arabia’s full legal structure or how the provisions interact. It only confirms that both Sharia law and the anti-cybercrime law were cited in Anojan’s proceedings.