Latest news with #Panoli
Scroll.in
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
SC stays arrest of complainant in Sharmishta Panoli case in FIRs outside West Bengal
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the arrest of Wajahat Khan Qadri, the man whose complaint led to the arrest of 22-year-old law student Sharmishta Panoli, in all first information reports registered against him outside West Bengal, Live Law reported. Panoli, a fourth-year business and law student at a Pune university, was arrested by the Kolkata Police in Gurugram on May 30 for her remarks about Prophet Muhammad on social media. She deleted the post later and issued an apology on X. Following Panoli's arrest, at least five complaints were filed against Qadri in West Bengal, including two at the Garden Reach Police Station, for alleged hate speech and derogatory remarks on social media that hurt religious sentiments. Complaints had also been filed against Qadri in several parts of the country, including Mumbai, Delhi and Assam. On June 9, the Kolkata Police arrested Qadri for posting allegedly 'malicious and inflammatory' remarks on social media. On Monday, the Supreme Court stayed further arrest of Qadri, noting he is already in police custody in one case from West Bengal and in judicial custody in another, The Indian Express reported. The bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh also issued notice on Qadri's writ petition, which sought the consolidation of first information reports registered against him in Assam, Maharashtra, Delhi and Haryana. Qadri had allegedly demanded action against Panoli on social media and later celebrated her arrest. While not endorsing Qadri's remarks, his counsel said he was 'reaping as he has sown'. He said that Qadri had already apologised and deleted the social media posts. However, the court said that the petitioner's comments do not fall under the ambit of freedom of speech. It remarked that 'hate speeches will not take us anywhere', Live Law reported. The first complaint against Qadri was filed by a Hindutva outfit, Shri Ram Swabhiman Parishad, on June 2. The outfit alleged that his posts promoted enmity between religious groups and demanded his arrest for hurting 'Hindu sentiments'.
Hans India
24-06-2025
- Hans India
SC grants relief to man who filed complaint against YouTube influencer
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday granted interim protection from coercive action till July 14 to the man who filed a complaint against social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli for allegedly making communal remarks in a video. A bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order while hearing a plea by Wazahat Khan, booked in FIRs across states, including West Bengal. The bench said Khan was already arrested by West Bengal Police and was in custody. His counsel said the FIRs and complaints against Khan were registered in several states for his old tweets, which were alleged to have hurt religious sentiments. After the bench agreed to hear his plea, his counsel sought no further coercive action against his client till the next date of hearing. 'Having considered the prayer, we are inclined to grant the same,' the bench said. As an interim measure, the top court said, till the next date of hearing on July 14, no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the FIRs or complaints referred to in the petition or the FIRs or complaints which may be lodged against him in connection with similar allegations. 'There is a famous Tamil saying. It must be there in Telugu also. A wound inflicted by a fire may heal but not a wound inflicted by the tongue,' the bench observed. Khan was arrested by Kolkata Police on June 9. He moved the apex court alleging that FIRs and complaints have been lodged against him in several states, including Assam, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Haryana, for certain old tweets made by him. The FIRs were in retaliation to a complaint filed by him against Panoli, who was arrested and later released on bail, he argued. 'I have deleted all of them and apologised,' his counsel said, submitting Khan was perhaps 'reaping what he has sown'. His counsel argued that the first FIR, according to the petitioner, was dated June 2. He referred to a number of previous judgements and orders of the apex court in which orders to consolidate the FIRs either in one state or multiple FIRs filed in a state to the state concerned were passed. The bench agreed to hear the plea and issued notice to the Centre and states of West Bengal, Assam, Maharashtra, Delhi and Haryana. The matter would be heard on July 14. Khan, arrested by the Kolkata Police in June earlier, was booked in the case for offences under the BNS, including for promoting enmity between different groups based on religion, race, and insults or attempts to insult religion. An FIR was registered against him at the Golf Green Police Station in south Kolkata for allegedly promoting hate speech and hurting religious sentiments through his social media posts. The other charges slapped against him included provoking breach of peace and statements conducing to public mischief. Panoli, a 22-year-old law student, was arrested by Kolkata Police from Gurugram in Haryana on May 30 after a video she uploaded on social media drew widespread outrage. She was booked by Garden Reach Police Station in Kolkata on May 15. The Calcutta High Court granted her interim bail on June 5. Khan, the prime complainant against Panoli, got a complaint registered against the influencer for offences, including malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, leading the police to lodge a case against her. In the video, Panoli allegedly hurled abuses and made communal remarks while being critical of a section of Bollywood celebrities for their silence on Operation Sindoor.
Hindustan Times
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC grants relief to man who filed complaint against YouTube influencer
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday granted interim protection from coercive action till July 14 to the man who filed a complaint against social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli for allegedly making communal remarks in a video. SC grants relief to man who filed complaint against YouTube influencer A bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order while hearing a plea by Wazahat Khan, booked in FIRs across states, including West Bengal. The bench said Khan was already arrested by West Bengal Police and was in custody. His counsel said the FIRs and complaints against Khan were registered in several states for his old tweets, which were alleged to have hurt religious sentiments. After the bench agreed to hear his plea, his counsel sought no further coercive action against his client till the next date of hearing. "Having considered the prayer, we are inclined to grant the same," the bench said. As an interim measure, the top court said, till the next date of hearing on July 14, no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the FIRs or complaints referred to in the petition or the FIRs or complaints which may be lodged against him in connection with similar allegations. "There is a famous Tamil saying. It must be there in Telugu also. A wound inflicted by a fire may heal but not a wound inflicted by the tongue," the bench observed. Khan was arrested by Kolkata Police on June 9. He moved the apex court alleging that FIRs and complaints have been lodged against him in several states, including Assam, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Haryana, for certain old tweets made by him. The FIRs were in retaliation to a complaint filed by him against Panoli, who was arrested and later released on bail, he argued. "I have deleted all of them and apologised," his counsel said, submitting Khan was perhaps "reaping what he has sown". His counsel argued that the first FIR, according to the petitioner, was dated June 2. He referred to a number of previous judgements and orders of the apex court in which orders to consolidate the FIRs either in one state or multiple FIRs filed in a state to the state concerned were passed. The bench agreed to hear the plea and issued notice to the Centre and states of West Bengal, Assam, Maharashtra, Delhi and Haryana. The matter would be heard on July 14. Khan, arrested by the Kolkata Police in June earlier, was booked in the case for offences under the BNS, including for promoting enmity between different groups based on religion, race, and insults or attempts to insult religion. An FIR was registered against him at the Golf Green Police Station in south Kolkata for allegedly promoting hate speech and hurting religious sentiments through his social media posts. The other charges slapped against him included provoking breach of peace and statements conducing to public mischief. Panoli, a 22-year-old law student, was arrested by Kolkata Police from Gurugram in Haryana on May 30 after a video she uploaded on social media drew widespread outrage. She was booked by Garden Reach Police Station in Kolkata on May 15. The Calcutta High Court granted her interim bail on June 5. Khan, the prime complainant against Panoli, got a complaint registered against the influencer for offences, including malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, leading the police to lodge a case against her. In the video, Panoli allegedly hurled abuses and made communal remarks while being critical of a section of Bollywood celebrities for their silence on Operation Sindoor. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Indian Express
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Dear Editor, I disagree: Not all speech is free
The constitutional right to free speech — a fundamental democratic principle — is often misinterpreted. The editorial ('Whose free speech?', IE, June 3) circumvents the context, intent and impact of free speech by defending Sharmistha Panoli's inflammatory social media post, targeting Islam and the Prophet, as a legitimate exercise of free expression. An important disclaimer: My disagreement with the editorial is not a defence or endorsement of the carceral state. Rather, beyond the over-simplistic binaries, the focus here is on recognising hate speech as a form of violence. While the editorial rightly criticises the overzealous police action in arresting the 22-year-old law student — she was later released on bail — it ignores the context that enabled Panoli's remarks and fails to acknowledge the target of her outburst. Panoli's words are far from being an act of reckless indiscretion; they feed into the volatile environment, increasingly marginalising, vilifying, and disproportionately targeting Muslims. The editorial, too, acknowledges that Panoli's post echoed 'some of the most hurtful anti-minority tropes in circulation'. However, more than the troubling content of Panoli's post, one should be wary of the political sentiments that consider Muslims to be demographic threats. Condemning arrests for online posts is crucial, but one must differentiate between freedom of expression and provocative speech that perpetuates targeted hatred against marginalised communities. The editorial failed to realise the essence of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015). The judgment upholds freedom of speech but doesn't legitimise hate speech. On the contrary, the SC has clearly defined the boundaries between protected free expression and punishable hate speech. In Shreya Singhal, the court established a crucial framework by distinguishing three categories of speech: Discussion, advocacy, and incitement. It held that 'mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause, howsoever unpopular, is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution', and is therefore protected. However, as the court noted, once such speech crosses the line into incitement — particularly incitement to violence, hatred, or public disorder — Article 19(2) applies, and restrictions become constitutionally valid. By drawing this line, Shreya Singhal underscores a crucial principle: The right to free speech does not encompass a right to incite harm or hatred against others. Many judicial precedents affirm this critical distinction. Notably, in three rulings in 2018 — Tehseen Poonawalla vs Union of India, Kodungallur Film Society vs Union of India, and Shakti Vahini vs Union of India, the SC went a step further, laying down guidelines to prevent and address hate speech and vigilante violence. However, these directives have largely remained on paper, with little to no meaningful implementation. The antidote to overzealous state action cannot be universal impunity. The editorial rightly points out that young Muslims have often been arrested for social media posts and labelled 'anti-national' or 'pro-Pakistan', often with little evidence of real harm. But to use that injustice to suggest that no one should be held accountable for incendiary speech is a fallacy. The discourse on free speech must be shaped by consistent legal principles, not by selective outrage and the use of legal machinery by those in power. The solution to the wicked problem of protecting free speech lies in equal and principled application of the law, not in abandoning accountability altogether. In a system that disproportionately targets minority voices while mostly excusing and sometimes even celebrating those who vilify them, the overwhelming defence from all political cadres for free expression is amusing. The double standard is made evident through the ruling party's sudden invocation of the principle of freedom of speech and expression, championing Panoli's right to free speech while silencing dissenting voices from marginalised communities — the latest, the arrest of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, is a case in point. Defending insidious speech on the grounds of constitutional liberty risks defending the right to hate, a right not promised by the Constitution. The writer teaches law at Jamia Hamdard
Scroll.in
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Complainant in Sharmishta Panoli case arrested for allegedly hurting religious sentiments
The Kolkata Police on Monday arrested Wajahat Khan Qadri, the man whose complaint led to the arrest of 22-year-old law student Sharmishta Panoli, for posting allegedly 'malicious and inflammatory' remarks on social media, The Indian Express reported. Qadri, who was allegedly absconding since June 1, was found in a flat in the city's Amherst Street area, PTI quoted unidentified police officers as saying. He will be produced before a court on Tuesday, The Indian Express reported. A complaint had been registered against him on June 5. He was booked under the same sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as Panoli: promoting enmity between different groups, deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens, intentional insult with the intent to provoke a breach of peace and statements that incite public mischief, The Indian Express had quoted an unidentified police officer as saying earlier. Panoli, a fourth-year business and law student at a Pune university, was arrested by the Kolkata Police in Gurugram on May 30 for her remarks about Prophet Muhammad on social media. She deleted the post later and issued an apology on X. A case was filed against Panoli based on Qadri's complaints on May 15. An arrest warrant had been issued against her on May 17, after which she was arrested from Gurugram, brought to Kolkata on a transit remand and remanded to judicial custody till June 13. The Calcutta High Court on June 5 granted interim bail to the 22-year-old law student. Following Panoli's arrest, at least five complaints were filed against Qadri in West Bengal, including two at the Garden Reach Police Station, for alleged hate speech and derogatory remarks on social media that hurt religious sentiments. Qadri had allegedly demanded action against Panoli on social media and later celebrated her arrest. The first complaint against Qadri was filed by a Hindutva outfit Shri Ram Swabhiman Parishad on June 2. The outfit alleged that his posts promoted enmity between religious groups and demanded his arrest for hurting 'Hindu sentiments'. Several complaints had also been filed against Qadri in different parts of the country, including Mumbai, Delhi and Assam, for alleged hate speech and making derogatory remarks against religious deities on social media. In Assam, Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma had said that an FIR was filed against the Qadri for allegedly making 'unacceptable comments against Devi Maa Kamakhya', The Indian Express reported. A three-member team of the Assam Police had earlier visited the area where Qadri lives in Kolkata's Garden Reach.
