Controversy for Nushrratt Bharuccha after a fatwa was reportedly issued following her visit to the Mahakal temple in Ujjain, drawing backlash from a cleric.

1) What happened: the core incident that took place was the event that occurred the core incident itself was very significant and it is what started everything the core incident is what we need to focus on.

In the last days of December 2025, Bollywood actress Nushrratt Bharuccha visited the Shri Mahakaleshwar (Mahakal) Jyotirlinga Temple in Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh. Photos/videos of her temple visit circulated widely online. Reports say she participated in temple rituals, including the well-known Bhasma Aarti (a revered early-morning ritual associated with Mahakal).

Soon after the pictures and videos went viral people started to react on social media. They were mostly talking about one thing: Can a famous person who is Muslim really take part in Hindu temple rituals? This was not just a celebrity visiting a temple. That happens a lot. The problem got bigger because people started to see it as a deal, about different religions mixing together.

2) Who spoke out against this. What were their exact words that were said

Multiple outlets reported that Maulana Mufti Shahabuddin Razvi Bareilvi, described as the national president of the All India Muslim Jamaat (or Jamat), objected strongly to her participation in Hindu rituals.

According to these reports, he described participating in idol worship/temple rituals as against Islamic principles, and urged repentance—using terms like tauba and reciting the kalma (wording varies slightly by report).

A key detail repeated across coverage is that the objection wasn’t presented as “she shouldn’t visit for security reasons” or “temple rules,” but as a religious judgment that a Muslim should not perform these acts.

3) The fatwa angle: what this fatwa thing means and what the fatwa does not mean

What a fatwa actually is (in simple terms)

In a lot of traditions a fatwa is a religious opinion that a qualified religious authority, like a mufti or a scholar gives when someone asks a question or needs guidance on a situation. People often get it wrong. Think a fatwa is like a punishment order.. Usually a fatwa is more like a religious opinion on a particular issue, than a legal decision.

What it is NOT (in India’s legal sense)

In India, a fatwa, which’s a kind of religious decree is not something that a court says you have to do. It does not have the power of law by itself. People can decide for themselves if they want to follow a fatwa or not. This usually depends on what they believe in or what the people around them think.. The police and the courts in India are not connected to these religious rules. The law of the land is separate, from what religious leaders say.

When we see headlines that say a fatwa has been issued what it really means is usually:

A cleric or a religious body publicly said that this act is not allowed by their religion and

Called for repentance, boycott, or social disapproval—not a legal punishment.

Reports around this controversy used the term “fatwa” to describe the cleric’s public statement condemning the actress’s participation in the rituals.

4) Why Mahakal is a high-visibility flashpoint

The Mahakaleshwar Temple is a special place. It is one of the 12 Jyotirlingas. This makes the Mahakaleshwar Temple one of the revered Shiva shrines for people who follow Hindu tradition.

When famous people and politicians visit the Mahakaleshwar Temple people take a lot of pictures. These pictures are shared with people. Sometimes these visits become events that everyone talks about.

The Mahakaleshwar Temple has a lot of meaning. So even when people do things at the Mahakaleshwar Temple like darshan or participating in aarti these things can become connected, to politics and the Mahakaleshwar Temple.

Mahakals Bhasma Aarti is really something. It is not a ritual. Mahakals Bhasma Aarti is one of the famous rituals that people do at the temple.

People often see Mahakals Bhasma Aarti on the news and on media. So when important people take part in Mahakals Bhasma Aarti it becomes a story. This can cause a lot of reactions, from people who see it.

5) The controversy’s fuel: identity + public visibility

This kind of problem usually starts for three reasons:

A) What the celebrities do is like they are making a statement. The things they do are seen as messages to their fans and to the world. Celebrity actions are like announcements that people pay attention to. When a celebrity does something it is like they are saying something to everyone and people listen to what the celebrities do because celebrity actions are, like messages that people care about.

A private citizen visiting a temple might not cause a deal.. When a celebrity like a famous movie star or a celebrity goes to a temple people pay attention to what the celebrity does. The celebritys actions are looked at closely by the public. Sometimes people do not understand the celebrity correctly. This happens to the celebrity because the celebrity is a figure. The things the celebrity does are seen by people and the celebritys actions are talked about by the public including things, like:

a “message,”

a “conversion hint,”

a “public relations stunt,” or

a “challenge” to religious norms.

When people are online the labels that define who they are become very clear. Identity labels become sharper online because people can easily find and connect with others who have the identity labels. This makes identity labels become defined and sharper online. The internet plays a role in making identity labels become sharper online. Identity labels are things like being a fan of a sports team or liking a certain type of music and these things become very obvious when people are online. Identity labels become sharper online. This can be a good thing, for people who want to find others with the same interests.

When someone has their way of being spiritual the internet can be really limiting. It is like the internet puts people into categories and says: “You are part of this religion so you have to do things this one way.” The internet does this even if the person does not want to be part of a group. This happens to people who’re spiritual in a broad way. The internet says: “You are this religion therefore you must do the things that people, in this religion do.”

C) The “ownership” narrative

Some people criticize things because they have a gatekeeping mindset. They think that only certain people should be allowed to like or do something. This kind of thinking is pretty narrow. The gatekeeping mindset is a problem because it stops people from being able to enjoy things that they like. People, with a gatekeeping mindset are always trying to decide who can and cannot do something. The gatekeeping mindset is something that people should try to avoid.

A person who follows religion A should not do B because people who believe in religion A do not usually do ritual B. People of religion A have their own ways of doing things and ritual B is not one of them. When it comes to religion A people are very particular, about what they do and what they do not do and B is something that people of religion A just do not do.

I do not think that someone who follows religion B should be allowed to go into place C. This is because of the rules that’re in place. The people who are in charge of place C do not want anyone from religion B to enter. They have their reasons for this. We should respect that. Place C is an area and the people in charge want to keep it that way. So it is best if people from religion B just stay away, from place C.

This is not seen in one community it is seen in many communities. You can see it across lots of religions. This is especially true when you have politics and social media pressure that people have to deal with. The thing with media and politics is that they can be a big influence on people, in many different religions.

6) What Nushrratt Bharuccha has said before about her faith and what she thinks about faith, in general and how Nushrratt Bharuccha feels about faith.

In this particular case, many reports noted that Nushrratt has previously expressed liberal/personal views on faith—the idea that peace can be found in different places of worship, and that spirituality can be personal rather than strictly bounded.

That matters because it helps us see the event in a way. It is not really about being defiant it is, about the things she believes in. That is what the media is showing. Her consistent belief system is what is important here not that she is being defiant.

As of the time of the reports cited here, coverage commonly stated that she had not issued an official detailed response specifically addressing the cleric’s statement.

7) What the criticism looked like: people said that something was a sin and they used pressure

In the coverage, the criticism was often framed in religious language such as “haram,” “gunah,” or “grave sin,” suggesting her actions were viewed through a doctrinal lens rather than a civic or cultural one.

This type of framing can cause people to feel like they have to do something because of what others think, like:

demands for apology,

online harassment,

calls for boycott,

moral policing (“how dare you”), and

attempts to force a public “clarification” of religious identity.

When there are no laws that say someone did something people can still be really mean to them. This is especially true, for women who are well known by the public. Women who are well known by the public can face bad social consequences.

8) The other side: support, pluralism, and “my faith is my choice”

Some people did not agree with the criticism they actually said the opposite:

India is a country where people’re free to make their own choices. Adults in India can decide where they want to go to worship. They have the freedom to choose their place of worship. India is a democracy that allows people to be secular. This means that adults, in India can pick where they want to pray or worship.

Visiting a temple does not automatically change religion.

Spirituality is something that’s personal to each person and it can be influenced by many different things. People have their ideas, about spirituality and what it means to them. Spirituality is a personal thing.

When the government gets involved in telling people what they can and cannot believe it is a problem. This kind of thing can hurt peoples freedom to think for themselves. It can also cause trouble, in our communities. Public policing of faith is not an idea because it goes against basic freedoms and social harmony. Faith is a thing and people should be able to make their own choices about what they believe in.

Some reports mention that spiritual leaders/saints also interpreted her visit as a sign of Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb (composite culture) rather than a transgression.

The support side usually focuses on a things. It is, about the support side. The support side is really important because it emphasizes some points. The support side is what people care about.

religious freedom, and

cultural coexistence.

9) The deeper issue: is this about religion—or about control?

A big reason these controversies keep happening and over is that they are rarely only about the theology of the church. They can also become about

* the people in the church

* the rules of the church

* the things that the church does. These controversies are often, about the theology of the church and other things too.

control over public behavior, especially women’s behavior,

community boundary enforcement, and

political signaling (who is “in” and who is “out”).

When a famous person is targeted it becomes a show. We see it on the news people talk about it. There are discussions on television. There are also lots of video clips that spread quickly on the internet. The celebrity becomes the center of attention. The whole thing is, like a spectacle.

10) Legal vs social reality in India

Legally

The Constitution of India safeguards the freedom of conscience and the right to profess practice and propagate the religion of your choice with some reasonable restrictions in place. Indias Constitution is very clear, about this it protects our freedom of conscience and the right to practice the religion we want.

Visiting a temple is generally a matter of personal choice, subject to temple rules.

Socially

Even when something is legal people can face:

* discrimination

* treatment

* social problems

People can still have a lot of trouble with the law and society even when something is legal. The legal thing can cause people a lot of stress and anxiety and people can face challenges when something is legal. Something that is legal can still hurt people and something that is legal can be very bad, for people.

harassment,

intimidation,

coordinated outrage,

reputational damage.

These incidents are important because they show us the difference between what the law says we can do and what people will actually do to us if we do something. The law gives us rights. It is the people around us who decide whether or not we can really use these rights without being judged or shamed. That is why these incidents matter: they show the gap between our rights and the way people enforce things through public shaming of the people who break the rules, like the incidents.

11) Media dynamics: this is about why the story spread fast the media played a big role in it the media dynamics helped the story to get around quickly and that is why the story spread fast the media dynamics were very important, in this case the story and the media dynamics went hand in hand.

This story had all the things that make something very popular. It had all the ingredients that drive virality:

a well-known actress,

a famous temple,

a “fatwa” headline (high emotional charge),

short clips/photos,

interfaith angle,

moral outrage language,

political-cultural debate hooks.

The term “fatwa” gets a lot of attention from people around the world. This is because many people do not really understand what “fatwa” means. So when they see the word “fatwa” in a headline they want to click on it to find out more about “fatwa”. The headline is interesting because of the word “fatwa”, in it.

12) Responsible way to read such controversies

To really get what is going on without getting upset you should try to look at it in a way. This means you do not let your emotions take over when you are trying to understand something. You have to be very careful and think clearly about the issue, at hand which is understanding it without getting pulled into rage-bait. That is what I want to talk about which is understanding it without getting pulled into rage-bait.

Separate the act from the narrative

She went to a temple. It was a really nice place to visit. The temple was very beautiful. She felt happy when she was there. She liked the temple much.

Narrative: People online assign motives and punishments.

I want to know what things have been verified. What are the things that have been checked and confirmed to be true. I am looking for information, on what has been verified.

Multiple outlets reported the cleric’s objection and the “fatwa” phrasing.

Don’t treat religious opinions as state law

A cleric’s decree is not the same as an FIR, court order, or government action.

Watch for escalation incentives

When people get really upset about something they start to talk about it. The more they talk about it the more upset they become. This is because outrage gets people engaged and this engagement makes them more outraged, about the issue. Outrage really gets people going. Then this outrage leads to even more engagement.

13) What this incident says about India being a country with different religions, in the year 2026 and how it affects the idea of interfaith India and what this means for interfaith India.

Incidents like this are a mirror of modern India’s tension between:

People do things together every day like visiting shrines and celebrating festivals as a group. Everyday pluralism is when people, from backgrounds casually visit multiple shrines and celebrate festivals together and

People who believe in ideas do not want others to have different thoughts. They set strict rules and say things like “do not cross these lines” when it comes to ideological gatekeeping. This means they are very serious, about what they believe in and they do not want anyone to question it or disagree with it. They have boundaries that they do not want people to cross.

When a celebrity does something it is like the whole world is watching. This is because everything they do is very visible to the public. The thing, about celebrities is that people can easily talk about who they’re what they stand for. A celebrity becomes the place where people argue about ideas because of this. The celebritys actions are widely visible. People can see them. The celebritys identity is also something that people can discuss openly.

14) Likely next steps in the story (based on patterns)

Usually something big happens after a controversy, like this. There are three things that can happen next. One of these three paths will probably happen after such a controversy:

Silence + fade-out

The celebrity just ignores it. The cycle of things just keeps moving on. The celebrity does not pay attention to it. The cycle moves forward.

A calm clarification

I think that people should be able to believe what they want. My own spirituality is something that I keep to myself. I respect all faiths. I think that is what matters. Saying that my spirituality is personal and I do not like to talk about it. I respect all faiths because everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe.

Escalation due to threats/harassment

When harassment gets worse people often have to deal with problems or they need to get help from the police to stay safe. Harassment can lead to a lot of trouble like having to file a complaint or getting protection, from the police. This is what happens when harassment is not stopped and it grows.

At the time of the coverage cited here, the story was still mainly in the “debate and backlash” phase rather than a legal escalation.

15) Bottom line summary

Nushrratt Bharuccha’s Mahakal temple visit in Ujjain went viral and triggered backlash because of interfaith identity politics.

A cleric identified as Maulana Mufti Shahabuddin Razvi Bareilvi reportedly objected and issued a religious condemnation often described as a fatwa, urging repentance.

So when you think about it a decree like this is really a religious opinion it is not something that a court of law would decide.. Even though it is not a law it can still make people feel like they have to do something or they will be judged by others. This kind of thing can create a lot of pressure on people to follow the rules of the religion even if they do not really want to. A decree, like this is still a religious opinion.

The controversy reflects a larger debate about religious freedom, personal spirituality, and moral policing in public life.