Calcutta High Court: Freedom of Speech, Sentiment, and Statute: Sharmistha Panoli Case Tests Boundaries of Expression in Digital India

Background of the Case

Sharmistha Panoli, a 22-year-old Instagram influencer and law student from Kolkata, was arrested by Kolkata Police on May 30 from a hotel in Gurugram on charges of posting a video containing communal remarks on social media regarding Operation Sindoor. An FIR was lodged against her at the Garden Reach Police Station as well as other several FIR lodged against her at several police stations on the same issue. Panoli reportedly ignored multiple police summons before her arrest in Gurugram. The Kolkata Police confirmed that all legal procedures were followed during her arrest.

Legal Developments

• Judicial Custody: Panoli was initially placed in 14-day judicial custody by the Kolkata Police. The arrest sparked political controversy, with BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari accusing the ruling TMC party of "appeasement politics".
• Interim Bail: On June 5, 2025, the Calcutta High Court granted Panoli interim bail, reversing its earlier decision to deny bail and advised her that freedom of speech doesn't mean that her remarks could be seen as disrespectful to religious beliefs of others, as in India we respect every religions. Also remind her about secularism, preamble and basic structure of our constitution. The conditions for bail include surrendering her passport, cooperating with the investigation, and furnishing a personal bond of Rs 10,000. The court also directed that she be given police protection due to threats received after the video went viral. The court's decision suggests a reconsideration of the circumstances surrounding her arrest and the content of the video.
• Threats to Judiciary: After the initial denial of bail, Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee of the Calcutta High Court received multiple death threats on the social media platform X. The threats were posted by several anonymous accounts, many using pseudonyms, highlighting concerns over online threats directed at judicial authorities.

Connection to Freedom of Speech

The case raises significant questions about the boundaries of freedom of speech in India, especially concerning online content:

• Legal Precedents: The Supreme Court's 2015 judgment in the Shreya Singhal case struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which had criminalized offensive online content. The Court emphasized that the law was overly broad and violated the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.
• Balancing Act: While freedom of speech is a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution, it is subject to reasonable restrictions. The Panoli case exemplifies the delicate balance between upholding free expression and preventing the spread of communal hatred.
• Political Dimensions: The involvement of political parties, such as the BJP's filing of FIRs against Khan Qadri, underscores how freedom of speech issues can intersect with political agendas, complicating the legal landscape.

Broader Implications

The Sharmistha Panoli case highlights several broader issues:

• Influencer Responsibility: Social media influencers wield significant power in shaping public opinion. This case underscores the need for influencers to exercise caution and responsibility in their online content.
• Digital Literacy: The case emphasizes the importance of digital literacy among the public to critically assess and respond to online content, reducing the potential for communal discord.
• Judicial Independence: The threats directed at the Calcutta High Court judge highlight concerns over the independence of the judiciary and the challenges posed by online harassment.

Our View

The legal system acted within its bounds, but must ensure actions are proportional and non-partisan. Individuals, especially public figures, must exercise responsibility in what they share. The case underscores the need for balanced enforcement — neither suppressing speech unnecessarily, nor ignoring content that incites division. Ultimately, this case is a reminder of how fragile the balance between freedom and accountability is — especially in a diverse, democratic society.

Case details: SHAMISHTA PANOLI @ SHARMISHTA PANOLI RAJ VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Case No: WPA/12361/2025