In a case swirling with controversy, the Calcutta High Court on Thursday granted interim bail to 22-year-old law student Sharmishta Panoli, arrested over a viral Instagram video in which she allegedly made inflammatory remarks against Islam and Prophet Muhammad.
Panoli, who had been in judicial custody since May 31, was taken into custody after her May 14 video drew swift and widespread outrage. The clip—apparently posted in reply to a Pakistani follower’s question about India’s military stance following the Pahalgam terror attack—ignited social media backlash and led to her arrest in Gurugram on the night of May 30. She later deleted the video and issued a public apology, saying she had received death and rape threats in its aftermath.
During Thursday’s hearing, the Calcutta High Court’s vacation bench, led by Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, pushed past procedural objections raised by the State’s Advocate General, who insisted the matter be left to a regular bench. The judge countered, “Different person is sitting today, but that does not make the situation different,” nodding to observations made by a prior bench.
The State insisted that attempts had been made to serve Panoli a notice prior to the arrest, but she was “not at her residence.” Still, the judge noted the arrest warrant lacked clarity on the grounds of arrest, despite the AG arguing that precedent supported the sufficiency of the warrant itself.
“Can the writ court be invited for grant of bail when judicial custody has already been ordered?” the AG questioned rhetorically. But the court remained unconvinced.
Panoli’s counsel, Senior Advocate DP Singh, justified approaching the High Court directly. He referenced recent cases from the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court, arguing that her arrest and the FIR were both illegal as “no cognizable offence” was disclosed. He emphasized Panoli’s status as a law student, lamenting, “She would have been a lawyer. I don’t know what will happen now.”
Senior Advocate Rajdeep Mazumder, who also appeared for Panoli, later confirmed the court had granted interim relief. Mid-hearing, a reporter attending via Zoom was abruptly removed from the session—an unusual development that underscored the case’s volatility.
The plea before the High Court sought to quash the FIR and declare the arrest illegal. While interim bail was granted, the broader legal questions remain pending.
Earlier this week, another judge, Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, noted, “In a country like ours… one should exercise caution when making any comments,” warning against hate speech and dog-whistling. Still, he instructed the State to ensure no fresh FIRs would be registered against Panoli for the same video.
Whether Panoli’s case signals a broader legal reckoning over social media speech—or merely a high-profile procedural tug-of-war—remains to be seen. But for now, the young student walks free, shielded by temporary relief, with a legal firestorm still smoldering at her heels.
