Author: Sourya Veer Pratap Deo, Xavier Institute of Management
TO THE POINT
In late May 2025, Kolkata Police arrested 22-year-old law student and social-media influencer Sharmistha Panoli for an Instagram video posted on May 14, 2025. In the clip, she criticised Bollywood actors for remaining silent on “Operation Sindoor,” which some interpreted as insulting a religious minority. Panoli deleted the video and apologised on May 15, but the FIR had already been lodged. The case presents a conflict between freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the legal limitations permitted by Article 19(2).. The Supreme Court has clarified that only speech directly tending to violence or public disorder can be curtailed, whereas deliberate insults to a community (with malicious intent) may fall outside protected discourse. Panoli’s situation, therefore, sits at this fault line between robust public debate and legally proscribed hate speech.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
FIR (First Information Report): The police report filed when a cognizable offence is registered. It sets the criminal process in motion (Panoli’s FIR was filed on May 15, 2025).
Judicial remand: Custody of an accused ordered by a court (as opposed to police custody). After arrest, Panoli was remanded to judicial custody for 14 days.
Cognizable offence: A crime that allows the police to arrest without a warrant. Since all the BNS sections applied to Panoli fall under this category, her immediate arrest was legally justified.
Hate speech: Not explicitly defined in Indian law. Generally refers to speech vilifying or inciting hostility against a protected group (often on religious grounds). Legally, courts look for intent to provoke hatred or violence; mere offense without such intent is typically not punishable.
The relevant BNS provisions state that the accused must have acted with a clear and intentional motive to insult or provoke in a deliberate and malicious manner. Without this intent, the speech alone may not amount to an offence.
Panoli’s actus reus would be the contents of her video post.
Section 46(4) CrPC / 43(5) BNSS: A provision (CrPC 46(4); re-enacted as BNSS 43(5)) forbidding the arrest of a woman between sunset and sunrise unless a magistrate’s written permission is obtained. Arresting a woman at night without this authorization is illegal (though it does not automatically void the legal process).
Chilling effect: The deterrent effect on legitimate speech when laws are vague or overbroad. The Supreme Court has warned that overly broad restrictions can have a chilling effect on free expression, causing people to self-censor out of fear of prosecution.
THE PROOF
Media and police accounts describe the sequence of events. On May 14, 2025, Panoli posted the controversial video on Instagram. In it, she rebuked Bollywood stars for their silence on “Operation Sindoor,” remarks that were widely seen as derogatory toward the Muslim community. On May 15, Panoli deleted the video and apologized publicly, but by that point a complaint had already been filed. An FIR was registered on May 15, 2025 (Garden Reach PS, Kolkata), invoking BNS sections 196(1)(a), 299, 352 and 353(1)(c) – the provisions addressing incitement of communal enmity and insult to religious sentiments.
According to police, after the FIR Panoli evaded several official notices. On May 22, a court issued a non-bailable arrest warrant. On May 30, 2025, Kolkata Police arrested Panoli at her residence in Gurugram (Gurgaon). Officials have emphasized that the arrest was made in broad daylight and that all procedures were followed. She was promptly produced before a magistrate and remanded to 14 days of judicial custody.
Legal Charges (BNS Sections): The FIR’s key charges are summarized below:
Section 196(1)(a) BNS – Promoting Communal Enmity: Prohibits actions (including speech) done with intent to incite enmity between religious groups. The prosecution must prove that Panoli intended her words to generate hostility. They allege her video, by targeting a community, satisfies this.
Section 299 BNS – Intentional Insult to Religion: (Predecessor IPC 295A) Punishes “deliberate and malicious” insults to religion. The Supreme Court upheld this law (in Ramji Lal Modi, 1957) only when such intent is present. Prosecutors assert Panoli’s speech was made with the requisite intent to outrage.
Section 352 BNS – Provoking Breach of Peace: Covers intentional insults aimed at provoking disturbance. Even non-violent insults qualify if likely to incite unrest. Investigators say Panoli’s large following made her remarks particularly inflammable.
Section 353(1)(c) BNS – addresses the circulation of statements that could incite fear or alarm among the public It penalizes content causing “public mischief.” The allegation is that Panoli’s widely viewed video could inflame communal tensions.
In short, authorities maintain that Panoli’s published speech (actus reus) and alleged malicious intent (mens rea) together constitute these offences. They argue that deleting the video and later apologizing does not negate the original act.
ABSTRACT
This commentary analyzes the arrest of influencer Sharmistha Panoli under India’s new penal code. It explores the interplay between free speech and hate-speech laws (BNS) as applied to social-media content. The analysis highlights the specific BNS provisions invoked and considers the procedural aspects of her arrest (e.g. the law protecting women from nighttime arrest). The case exemplifies the difficult balance courts face between protecting public order and safeguarding fundamental expression rights in the digital age.
CASE LAWS
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): Distinguished between “discussion/advocacy” (protected) and “incitement” (restricted), emphasizing that only speech directly inciting disorder can be curtailed.
Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. (1957): The laws protecting against outraging religious sentiments emphasize the necessity of deliberate and malicious intent** in determining culpability.
Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021): Discussed the nuances of hate speech, emphasizing context, intent, and potential for incitement.
Deepa vs. S. Vijayalakshmi (Madras HC, 2021): Clarified that Section 46(4) CrPC (nighttime arrest of women) is “directory” but requires written justification and magistrate’s permission in “exceptional circumstances.”
CONCLUSION
The legal proceedings against Sharmistha Panoli highlight the ongoing tension between upholding freedom of expression and ensuring communal harmony. While the right to express dissent is fundamental in a democratic society, it is equally important to ensure that such expressions do not incite hatred or violence. This incident has also raised serious questions about influencer liability in India. With no explicit statutes governing influencer conduct, cases like Panoli’s are setting informal precedents. Content creators with massive followings are no longer perceived as mere individuals but as powerful agents capable of influencing public discourse. As a result, their liability for harmful or incendiary content is being more rigorously examined by both the courts and society. The public response has been sharply polarized. On one side, prominent public figures such as Kangana Ranaut and Pawan Kalyan have denounced the arrest, calling it a threat to democratic expression. On the other, several citizens and legal commentators believe the arrest was a necessary response to provocative content in a sensitive communal environment. Adding another layer to the discourse, Panoli’s own father expressed in a media interview that he hopes his daughter has “learnt a lesson,” and admitted that the family was uncomfortable with some of her earlier content. This parental perspective adds emotional nuance to an otherwise legally and politically charged event. As the courts deliberate on this case, its outcomes will likely shape future discussions on digital speech, communal harmony, and legal accountability. The arrest of Sharmistha Panoli has therefore become more than a legal issue — it is now an indicator for India’s evolving norms around expression, influence, and public responsibility.
FAQS
What is “Hate Speech” in India?
Not precisely defined by statute, it’s generally understood as speech inciting hatred, discrimination, or violence against groups, often based on religion or community, requiring malicious intent.
Can women be arrested at night?
Generally, no, between sunset and sunrise, unless a woman police officer obtains prior written permission from a Judicial Magistrate for “exceptional circumstances.”
Does an apology negate charges?
No, an apology does not automatically cancel criminal charges, especially in cases of serious, non-compoundable offenses. It might be a mitigating factor.
What is the “chilling effect”?
It’s when fear of legal consequences discourages individuals from exercising their legitimate right to free speech.
What Happens Next?
Sharmistha Panoli is currently in jail. Her case will continue through the courts. How this case is handled, especially regarding the exact details of her arrest and how the laws on hate speech are applied, will set an important example for future cases involving online content and influencer responsibility in India. It highlights the constant need for police to follow proper rules and for everyone to understand the consequences of what they post online.
