Calcutta High Court Denies Ad-Interim Bail to Law Student Over Allegedly Blasphemous Social Media Post

Last Updated on June 4, 2025 by Athi Venkatesh

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court declined to grant ad-interim bail to law student Sharmistha Panoli, who had approached the court challenging her arrest and subsequent remand to 14 days of judicial custody. The matter arose following her social media posts allegedly containing blasphemous remarks against Prophet Mohammad in the context of Operation Sindoor. The posts, made on Instagram and X (formerly Twitter), received considerable backlash, prompting her to delete the content and issue a public apology on X. Despite the apology, an FIR was registered against her on May 15, 2025, and arrest warrants were issued two days later, leading to her arrest in Gurugram.

The primary legal issue in this case concerns the legality of Panoli’s arrest and her right to bail. Her counsel argued that the arrest was procedurally flawed, stating that the alleged offences in the FIR were non-cognizable, which required prior approval and mandatory notice before any arrest under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Since no such notice was served, it was contended that her arrest violated due process.

However, the state contended that a notice had been issued but could not be served as Panoli and her family had allegedly absconded to Gurugram. The police, upon locating her, arrested her and presented her before a magistrate who granted a three-day police remand, after which she was brought to Kolkata. It was also pointed out that her bail plea had already been rejected by the trial court after due consideration.

The High Court, applying the rule of law and principles of free speech with reasonable restrictions, held that while freedom of expression is protected, it does not extend to hurting the religious sentiments of others. Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee observed that India’s diverse social fabric required individuals to exercise restraint and sensitivity, especially on public platforms. In denying interim relief, the court stressed that the matter did not warrant urgent intervention, noting that “heavens will not fall” if the hearing was deferred.

Accordingly, the matter was posted before the next vacation bench, with the court balancing constitutional rights against societal harmony and public order.