On May 30, 2025, Sharmishtha Panoli, a 22-year-old fourth-year law student at Symbiosis Institute in Pune, was arrested by Kolkata Police at her Delhi residence for allegedly making derogatory remarks about Islam and Prophet Muhammad in a now-deleted social media video. The arrest, executed allegedly without prior legal notice, has sparked widespread debate, with accusations of procedural irregularities and comparisons to high-profile blasphemy cases in India.
The complainant, Wazahat Khan, filed an FIR at Garden Reach Police Station in Kolkata, accusing Panoli of blasphemy. Khan’s own social media history, filled with derogatory remarks against Hindus, has fuelled counter-allegations of selective outrage.
The arrest of Sharmishtha Panoli has ignited a firestorm of controversy, raising questions about freedom of speech, the application of India’s blasphemy laws, and the role of social media in amplifying communal tensions. Panoli, a young law student, was apprehended following a complaint by Wazahat Khan, who alleged that her video insulted Islam. The case has drawn attention not only for its legal implications but also for the complainant’s own history of inflammatory social media posts targeting Hindu.
Background of the Incident
The Controversial Video
On May 14, 2025, Sharmishtha Panoli, known on the social media platform X as @Sharmishta__19, posted a video in response to a Pakistani follower’s question about India’s military response to the Pahalgam terror attack. The video reportedly contained inflammatory remarks about Islam and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), which triggered significant backlash. The content went viral, leading to death and rape threats against Panoli and the trending hashtag #ArrestSharmishta on X, particularly among members of the Muslim community demanding strict legal action.
Panoli’s Apology and Deletion
On May 15, 2025, Panoli issued a public apology on X, stating: “I do hereby tender my UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGY whatever was put are my personal feelings and i never intentionally wanted to hurt anybody so if anybody is hurt I’m sorry for the same. I expect co-operation and understanding. Henceforth, I will be cautious in my public post. Again please accept my apologies.”
She also deleted the video and clarified that her remarks were a reaction to trolling and threats from “Radical Pakistani terrorists,” emphasising her patriotism with the statement, “Mere liye mera desh pehle aata hai” (My country comes first for me). Despite these actions, the controversy persisted, culminating in her arrest two weeks later.
Who is the Complainant, Wazahat Khan?
The complaint against Panoli was filed by Wazahat Khan at Garden Reach Police Station in Kolkata, leading to Case No. 136 dated May 15, 2025. Khan accused Panoli of making blasphemous remarks that outraged religious sentiments, invoking Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita). However, Khan’s own social media activity has come under scrutiny, with posts that allegedly insult Hindu deities and practices. Examples include:
1) Derogatory remarks about Bhagwan Krishna, calling him a “rangeela” (playboy) who secretly watched women bathe.
2) Labelling the Hindu festival of Holi as a “rapist culture.”
3) Insulting the Kamakhya Devi Temple, describing it as a place where Brahmins worship a “chopped vagina” and questioning whether such practices reflect “blind worship or mental sickness.”
4) Abusive language targeting Hindus, including terms like “urine drinkers” and “sick people.”
These posts, predating Panoli’s video, have gone viral, leading to accusations of hypocrisy and selective outrage.
FIRs against Wazahat Khan
Notably, two separate complaints have been filed against Wazahat, who had lodged an FIR against Sharmishta Panoli, after it was found that he is a habitual abuser of Hindu deities.
Referring to those abusive posts, Advocate Vineet Jindal filed an official complaint with the Delhi police and Cyber Crime Unit of Delhi Police against Wazahat Khan. He sought registration of FIR against Khan under sections 194, 195, 356 of BNS and sections 66, 67, 69 of the IT Act.
He wrote in the online complaint, “I am writing to lodge a formal complaint regarding a series of extremely offensive, hateful, and defamatory posts circulating on social media by an individual named Wazahat Khan Qadri Rashidi, whose profiles and posts are available publicly on platforms like Twitter (now X). The individual has made repeated posts containing Hate speech targeting the Hindu community, its beliefs, practices, and revered figures, including Lord Krishna. Sexually explicit and vulgar language mocking sacred scriptures and deities. Communal provocation aimed at disturbing social harmony. Graphic misinformation and morphed images are intended to ridicule and provoke religious sentiments. The content includes abusive terms like rapist culture, urine drinkers, and derogatory remarks on Hindu festivals, deities, and temples (e.g., Kamakhya Devi Temple). These posts appear to be a clear and deliberate attempt to promote enmity between religious groups, which is a punishable offense under 194,195,356 BNS and 66,67,69 of IT Act. request to lodge an FIR against above named person. I am ready to provide any further information or cooperate in the investigation process as required.”
🚨 एडवोकेट वीनेत जिंदल ने @DelhiPolice और @DCP_IFSO को वज़ाहत खान क़ादरी राशिदी के खिलाफ शिकायत दर्ज कराई है।
आरोप:⁰🔹 ऑनलाइन नफ़रत फैलाना⁰🔹 धार्मिक भावनाओं का अपमान⁰🔹 अभद्र और आपत्तिजनक भाषा का प्रयोग
वज़ाहत खान Rashidi Foundation का सदस्य है — वही संस्था जो Sharmistha… pic.twitter.com/oH6J6g7j9I— Adv.Vineet Jindal (@vineetJindal19) June 1, 2025
Advocate Amita Sachdeva filed the second complaint with the Cyber Crime Cell of Saket Police in Delhi against the Kolkata resident.
She wrote that the complaint has been filed against Wazahat Khan Qadri Rashidi, Co-Founder of Rashidi Foundation, Kolkata, for “posting offensive, derogatory, and inflammatory content on social media platform X, targeting Hindu Religion, Deities, Festivals, and Culture. These posts have caused significant hurt to the religious sentiments of the Hindu community, including myself, and have the potential to incite communal disharmony.”
The Arrest and Legal Proceedings
Circumstances of the Arrest
On May 30, 2025, Kolkata Police arrested Panoli at her residence in Delhi (reportedly Gurgaon in some sources) without serving prior legal notice or presenting an arrest warrant at the time of apprehension, according to posts on X. A Delhi magistrate approved a transit remand at 7:30 p.m. that evening, allowing Kolkata Police to transfer Panoli to Kolkata for further proceedings on May 31, 2025. The Alipore Court in Kolkata denied police custody and instead ordered 14-day judicial custody. Panoli’s bail application was rejected, and her request to consolidate known and unknown FIRs (five in total in West Bengal) is under judicial consideration.
Allegations of Illegality
The arrest has been criticised for procedural irregularities. X users and supporters have labelled it as treating “a young girl like a terrorist,” citing the lack of prior notice and the nighttime approval of the transit remand. The Delhi High Court’s November 2024 ruling mandates written grounds for arrest to ensure the accused can seek legal recourse. Additionally, Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994) emphasise that arrests must be justified with reasonable cause and that magistrates must scrutinise grounds before approving remand. The absence of prior notice and the haste of the process raise questions about compliance with these legal standards.
Kolkata Police’s Response
On May 30, 2025, Kolkata Police issued a statement on X to address accusations of unlawful arrest:
“In reference to Garden Reach Police Station Case No. 136 dated 15.05.2025, certain social media narratives suggesting an unlawful arrest of a law student are factually incorrect and misleading. All legal procedures were duly adhered to. All attempts were made to serve notice, but she was found absconding on every occasion. Consequently, a warrant of arrest was issued by the competent court, following which she was apprehended lawfully from Gurgaon. She was thereafter produced before the appropriate magistrate and granted transit remand as per due process of law. We urge all concerned to refrain from spreading unverified or speculative content and to rely on authentic sources for information.”
In reference to Garden Reach Police Station Case No. 136 dated 15.05.2025, certain social media narratives suggesting an unlawful arrest of a law student are factually incorrect and misleading.
All legal procedures were duly adhered to. All attempts were made to serve notice,…
— Kolkata Police (@KolkataPolice) May 31, 2025
Despite this clarification, skepticism persists, with many questioning the lack of transparency and the rapid escalation of the case despite no reported communal unrest linked to Panoli’s remarks.
Social Media Reaction and the “Release Sharmishtha” Campaign
The arrest sparked a significant online backlash, with hashtags like #ReleaseSharmistha and #StandWithSharmistha trending on X. Supporters argued that Panoli’s apology and the deletion of the video should have mitigated the need for such drastic action, especially given the absence of communal unrest. Top posts on X included:
1) “Sharmishtha apologised and deleted her video. No riots, no unrest. Why is Kolkata Police treating a 22-year-old like a terrorist? #ReleaseSharmistha”
2) “Wazahat Khan insults Hindu gods, calls Holi ‘rapist culture,’ but faces no FIR. Sharmishtha makes one mistake, apologises, and is jailed. Double standards? #StandWithSharmistha”
3) “Kolkata Police’s haste in arresting a young girl while ignoring Wazahat Khan’s hate posts is shameful. Where’s the justice? #ReleaseSharmistha”
4) “Kamakhya Devi insulted, Krishna mocked, but no action against Wazahat Khan. Sharmishtha’s arrest is a witch hunt. #StandWithSharmistha”
5) “No prior notice, nighttime remand, and no unrest caused. Sharmishtha’s arrest violates SC guidelines. #ReleaseSharmistha”
Legal Framework: Section 295A and Blasphemy in India
India lacks a dedicated blasphemy law, but Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) serves as its equivalent. Enacted in 1927, it penalises “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs” with up to three years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. The Supreme Court, in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP (1957), upheld its constitutionality, arguing it addresses aggravated insults that disrupt public order, a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Since the high-profile Nupur Sharma case in 2022, Islamist groups, often led by religious leaders and influencers, have increasingly demanded action against alleged blasphemers, sometimes accompanied by protests and mob violence. The Panoli case reflects this trend, with figures like Waris Pathan and Team Rising Falcon credited for pressuring authorities.
Comparisons with Other Blasphemy Cases
The Nupur Sharma Case (2022)
On May 27, 2022, Nupur Sharma, then a BJP spokesperson, made remarks about Prophet Muhammad during a TV debate, citing Islamic texts in response to a Muslim panellist’s mockery of a Shivalinga. Mohammed Zubair, co-founder of Alt News, shared a clipped video of her remarks, sparking outrage, death threats, and diplomatic backlash. Sharma faced multiple FIRs, was suspended by the BJP, and went into hiding. The controversy led to violent incidents, including the beheading of Kanhaiya Teli in Udaipur, with perpetrators citing Sharma’s remarks as their motive. Zubair’s role was criticised for selectively amplifying Sharma’s comments, and he was arrested for a 2018 tweet deemed offensive to Hindus, though later released on bail.
The Yati Narsinghanand Case (2024)
On September 29, 2024, Yati Narsinghanand, a Hindu priest, made alleged derogatory remarks about Prophet Muhammad in a speech that went viral after being shared by Zubair on X. Protests erupted, with “Sar tan se juda” slogans and stone-pelting reported in Ghaziabad. Multiple FIRs were filed against Narsinghanand, and a counter-FIR was lodged against Zubair for allegedly inciting violence. The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the FIR against Zubair on May 22, 2025, emphasizing the need for a fair investigation.
Patterns of Mob Action
The Panoli, Sharma, and Narsinghanand cases highlight a pattern of Islamist-led campaigns amplified by social media, often involving protests and, in extreme cases, violence. Notable incidents include:
• Kamlesh Tiwari (2019): Killed for alleged blasphemous remarks.
• Kishen Boliya (2022): Murdered for a social media post deemed offensive.
• Kanhaiya Teli (2022): Beheaded for supporting Sharma.
These cases underscore the dangers of mob-driven “justice” and the role of influencers like Zubair, Pathan, and Owaisi in shaping public outrage.
Sharmishtha Panoli’s arrest, triggered by Wazahat Khan’s complaint, has spotlighted the complexities of India’s blasphemy laws and their enforcement. The case, marked by procedural controversies and public outcry, mirrors earlier incidents involving Nupur Sharma and Yati Narsinghanand, where social media played a pivotal role in escalating tensions. The broader debate over Section 295A, free speech, and communal harmony remains unresolved, necessitating a nuanced approach to balance individual rights with societal stability.
Comments