The West Bengal Police on June 1 justified the arrest of Instagram influencer Sharmistha Panoli, clarifying that the action was not taken against her for expressing patriotic sentiments but rather for allegedly using hate speech and abusive language in a video. In a detailed statement, the police emphasised that such content “should not be mistaken for freedom of speech and expression.”
The West Bengal Police refuted online allegations that Sharmistha Panoli was arrested for expressing patriotic views or criticising Pakistan in the wake of Operation Sindoor.
“Certain social media accounts are circulating false claims that a law student was wrongfully arrested by Kolkata Police for opposing Pakistan. This narrative is both misleading and malicious,” the police said in an official statement. They further clarified that the case against Panoli was registered on May 15 at the Garden Reach Police Station, stating that the video in question was deemed “insulting to the religious beliefs of a section of Indian citizens and aimed at promoting disharmony and hatred between communities.”
The West Bengal Police stated that the case against Sharmistha Panoli was filed under relevant provisions of the newly implemented Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Following a thorough investigation, the police reported that multiple attempts were made to serve her a legal notice, but each time, she was found to be “absconding.”
“Despite several efforts to serve notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, the accused could not be located,” the police said in a statement. They further emphasised that under the updated BNS framework, hate speech targeting religious figures or communities—particularly content that could incite communal tension or hatred—is considered a punishable offence.
Panoli, a law student and social media influencer, was arrested in Gurugram on May 30. She was subsequently brought to Kolkata, where she was produced before a magistrate and remanded to 14 days of judicial custody.
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:
• Derogatory remarks about Bhagwan Krishna, calling him a “rangeela” (playboy) who secretly watched women bathe.
• Labelling the Hindu festival of Holi as a “rapist culture.”
• 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.”
• 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.
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. Notably, Panoli’s 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.
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 penalizes “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.
Comments