Latest news with #BNSSection152
Time of India
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Bombay high court to hear today plea of student arrested for post on Op Sindoor
MUMBAI: The vacation bench of Bombay high court on Monday postponed to Tuesday a petition seeking interim bail filed by a second-year engineering college student from Pune arrested for her social media post on Indo-Pak hostilities amid Operation Sindoor . The student has also challenged her rustication from college as being "arbitrary and unlawful". She is currently lodged in Yerwada central prison in Pune. The woman's advocate, Farhana Shah, on Monday appealed for urgent hearing citing her ongoing semester examinations, saying the student's liberty was snatched. Shah said the action for "a social media post expressing personal opinions" was taken without affording her any hearing. "This was in gross violation of principles of natural justice and her fundamental rights to equality, freedom of expression, and life," the advocate said. Shah argued that it was only a repost with any intention, which she later deleted. On May 7, the student had reposted a social media post that was critical of Indian govt in the then-ongoing hostilities with Pakistan following Pahalgam terror attack. Her petition says she deleted the post within two hours of posting it and that she received a "barrage of threatening and abusive messages on social media". She was arrested on May 9 by Kondhwa police in an FIR invoking offences including BNS Section 152 that criminalises actions that threaten sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. Her college sent a letter of rustication the same day to her parents, removing her immediately after terming her an "anti-national". After a magistrate rejected her bail plea on May 16, she approached HC as her semester 4 exams were due to start on May 24.
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
A surprising arrest
Why the arrest of Professor Khan is worrying Today, the Supreme Court—the highest court in India—is looking at a case where a professor named Ali Khan Mahmudabad was arrested. He teaches at a college called Ashoka University. Why was he arrested? He wrote something on social media. In his post, he said it was strange that some people praised an army officer named Col Qureshi but didn't speak up when bad things like mob violence or homes being destroyed unfairly happened in India. Some people disagreed with him or thought it was not the right time to say that. But that doesn't mean what he said was a crime. Still, the police in Haryana arrested him. They said he was trying to divide people based on religion, hurt the country's unity, and even insult women. These are very serious charges—and they don't really match what the professor said. One of the laws used against him is a new one called BNS Section 152. It's a lot like an older law called sedition, which was often used to punish people for criticizing the government. That older law was misused a lot and has mostly been removed now. But this new law seems just as dangerous if it's used in the wrong way. Also, the people who complained about the professor were connected to a political party called the BJP. The police should treat every complaint fairly, no matter who it comes from. But sometimes it looks like they take these complaints more seriously if the person complaining is connected to the ruling party. The professor had even explained what he meant after he got a notice from a government body, but the police still arrested him. Other teachers at his university called the arrest 'planned bullying.' And many people agree. This situation raises big questions: Are the police being fair? Is this new law too easy to misuse? Is it okay to arrest someone just because they criticized something? The Supreme Court has said before that people shouldn't be punished just for saying something others don't like. Instead of using police power, people should respond with their own words and ideas. Now the court has to decide again: Should someone be put in jail just for sharing their thoughts politely—even if not everyone agrees with them? This case shows us how important free speech is in a democracy—and why we must protect it. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Time of India
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
An arresting moment
Police action against Prof Khan shows little logic & raises several larger questions Today, the Supreme Court will hear the appeal against the arrest of Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad of Ashoka University. That the original complainants were a Haryana govt appointee and a BJP sarpanch shouldn't have made any difference to local police's response. But Khan was taken into custody for a social media post that contrasted 'rightwing commentators'' praise for Col Qureshi with their stand on 'lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing…'. Let's assume that some can disagree with him. Or that some may even hold the view that Khan's argument was ill-timed. But can anyone seriously argue that Khan allegedly committed the following crimes – 'sow communal divisions', 'endanger India's sovereignty and unity' and insulted 'the modesty of women'? Yet these were the crimes Haryana police charged him with. Among the provisions used was BNS Section 152, which bears a striking resemblance to IPC's sedition provision. A local court promptly sent Khan to 48 hours police custody. Khan's attempts to clarify his post after he received the Women's Commission's summons didn't make a difference. The Ashoka University faculty association's statement that the arrest was 'calculated harassment' was spot on. Many larger questions come up via this case. First, is there any application of mind by local police when complaints are made by those associated with governing parties in various states? Second, isn't it now clear that BNS Section 152 is as much a blunt instrument as the sedition provision was? Third, is criticism protected by free speech? For police and some politicians, the answer seems no. Recall here what SC had said when it quashed the case against Imran Pratapgarhi, who had posted a Faiz poem – the court said standards of free speech can't be decided by those 'who always perceive criticism as a threat…', that those taking objection should respond by 'counter-speech', not by demanding police action. But as SC yet again hears a case that should never have seen the light of day, all thinking Indians must also ask why a professor who praised, logically and cohesively, GOI's military response to Pahalgam found himself behind bars. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
