Who really failed Sharmistha Panoli?- Operation Sindoor rant, Bollywood silence & a midnight arrest

In the age of social media, one post can change the course of someone’s life overnight. This is exactly what happened with 22-year-old law student and influencer Sharmistha Panoli, whose recent arrest has sparked nationwide debate on free speech, hate speech, and the boundaries of expression online. From fiery political statements to legal rebuttals, the case has quickly snowballed into a hot-button issue, especially across digital platforms where Panoli had initially found her audience.

So, what exactly happened? Why was a young law student picked up from Gurugram and taken to judicial custody in Kolkata? And is this a case of political overreach or justified legal action? Here’s a full explainer on the case, the positions taken by the Kolkata Police, Bar Council of India, and politicians and why this should matter to everyone using their voice online.

Sharmistha Panoli is a law student and social media influencer known for voicing strong political opinions. On May 30, she was arrested from Gurugram and brought to Kolkata over a now-deleted video she posted on Instagram, which criticised Bollywood actors, particularly Muslim celebrities for staying silent on Operation Sindoor, a military operation in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

The video, which went viral quickly, was laced with harsh and abusive language. While Panoli later deleted the video and issued a public apology, the content had already reached the authorities. A formal complaint was filed against her under sections of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), India’s updated criminal code, for allegedly promoting communal disharmony and hurting religious sentiments.

Why Was She Arrested?

According to the Kolkata Police, Sharmistha wasn’t arrested for being patriotic or criticising Pakistan. Instead, they argue that she was detained for “spreading hate and promoting disharmony between communities” through her content. The police stated they had issued multiple notices to Panoli under Section 35 of the BNSS, but she was allegedly untraceable, prompting the court to issue an arrest warrant. She was then lawfully taken into custody and produced before a magistrate, who approved her transit remand to Kolkata.

Kolkata Police also addressed the outrage on social media, calling the narrative that she was arrested merely for her views "misleading and mischievous."

The Other Side: Outrage from Legal and Political Circles

Not everyone agrees with how the situation was handled. Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and a Rajya Sabha MP, has come out strongly in Sharmistha’s support. Calling the arrest “unfortunate,” Mishra said it was a “serious violation of free speech” and “a complete failure of justice.” He pointed out that the video had been deleted, an apology had been issued, and there was no violence or unrest triggered by her post.

Mishra also accused the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government and the Kolkata Police of selective action and political bias. He referred to past instances of unchecked violence and religious insult in the state, claiming that similar or more serious offences by other groups were often ignored. He has demanded Sharmistha’s immediate release and a fair trial.

The BJP, too, has accused the state government of using police power for “vote-bank politics” and “appeasement.” West Bengal BJP President Sukanta Majumdar said the arrest shows a biased system that punishes one side while shielding others, especially when it comes to religious and communal sensitivities.

Where Do We Go From Here?

At the heart of the debate is the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, right that also comes with reasonable restrictions. These restrictions include preventing hate speech, maintaining public order, and ensuring the security of the state. The Kolkata Police have maintained that Panoli crossed that line by using inflammatory and communal language in a public post.

However, critics argue that her arrest shows a lack of proportionality, was it really necessary to arrest a 22-year-old law student for a single video, especially after an apology? Should there not have been a warning, fine, or legal summons instead?

This case highlights a crucial dilemma of our times, where do we draw the line between freedom of speech and hate speech? In a democracy, it is vital to protect one’s right to express opinions, even unpopular ones. But it’s equally important to ensure that this freedom is not weaponised to target communities, incite hatred, or spread misinformation.

The arrest of Sharmistha Panoli brings up important questions about digital responsibility, selective justice, and the growing friction between state authorities and online expression. Whether or not one agrees with what she said, the method of action taken against her is now under public scrutiny.