Sharmistha Panoli Arrest: A Legal Flashpoint Between Free Speech and Religious Sentiments

Kolkata | June 2, 2025: In a case that has stirred legal, political, and societal debates across the country, 22-year-old influencer and law student Sharmistha Panoli was arrested by Kolkata Police from Gurugram late Friday evening. The arrest followed allegations of hurting religious sentiments through an Instagram video she posted on May 14. Panoli has been remanded to judicial custody for 14 days by a Kolkata court.

The video in question, which has since been deleted, reportedly contained derogatory references to Islam and Prophet Muhammad. The case has prompted widespread discourse on the limits of free speech, alleged selective law enforcement, and the role of social media accountability.

What Triggered the Arrest?

According to Kolkata Police, the case stems from a video Panoli posted in response to a question posed by a Pakistani follower regarding India’s military response to the Pahalgam terror attack. The video, perceived as inflammatory, led to a First Information Report (FIR) being filed at Garden Reach Police Station under sections related to promoting enmity between communities and hurting religious sentiments.

Despite her deletion of the video and issuance of an unconditional apology on May 15, police said several attempts to serve her legal notice failed as Panoli and her family had allegedly absconded. A court-issued arrest warrant eventually led to her apprehension from Gurugram.

“Attempts to serve notice as per law couldn’t be successful since the accused, with her family, absconded,” the police stated.

The Legal Standpoint

Panoli’s legal counsel argues that she has cooperated with the investigation and that her electronic devices have already been seized. They opposed police custody and sought bail, stating that no further custodial interrogation was warranted. The court denied the prosecution’s plea for police custody and sent her to judicial custody till June 13.

“We moved our bail application before the court, citing seizure of devices. The court turned down police custody and sent her to judicial custody,” said her lawyer.

Public Apology and Backlash

In her now-removed apology, Panoli said: “I do hereby tender my UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGY. Whatever was put are my personal feelings and I never intentionally wanted to hurt anybody.”

She also clarified that her remarks were targeted at “radical Pakistani terrorists”, adding, “Mere liye mera desh pehle aata hai (For me, my country comes first).”

Despite this, the video had already gone viral, attracting threats and complaints from across the country.

Free Speech or Provocation? Political Reactions Pour In

The case has become a lightning rod for political commentary. BJP leader and West Bengal LoP Suvendu Adhikari accused the ruling Trinamool Congress of double standards:

“Action is only taken against Sanatanis. Mahua Moitra used derogatory language against Goddess Kali, 200 FIRs were registered. No action was taken.”

He alleged “appeasement politics” by the TMC and questioned the inconsistency in applying hate speech laws.

Adding his voice to the debate, Andhra Pradesh Deputy CM Pawan Kalyan posted:

“She owned her mistake, deleted the video and apologized. The WB Police swiftly acted, taking action against Sharmistha. Secularism must be a two-way street.”

Actor-politician Kangana Ranaut also took to social media demanding Panoli's immediate release.

Selective Prosecution? The Question of Legal Consistency

The case has raised critical legal questions about Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes "deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings." Critics argue that the provision is often selectively enforced, especially when it comes to speech involving Hindu sentiments.

Civil society groups like the Shri Ram Swabhiman Parishad have extended support to Panoli, stating that “apologies should be enough in a civil society” and questioning the need for custodial detention in such cases.

The Road Ahead

As Panoli remains in custody, the case will test judicial standards on:

• Intent vs Impact in hate speech cases
• The role of social media in escalating communal tensions
• Equal application of law irrespective of political or religious affiliations

In an era where a single video can mobilize FIRs across states and trigger political storms, this case reaffirms the need for legal clarity, procedural fairness, and digital responsibility.

Verdicto will continue to track developments in the case with legal updates, court proceedings, and constitutional analysis.

Stay tuned.