The Supreme Court on Thursday granted interim protection from arrest to journalist Abhisar Sharma for four weeks in connection with a first information report (FIR) registered against him in Assam over a video post allegedly criticising the state government’s policies, PTI reported.
A bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh declined to entertain Sharma’s plea seeking quashing of the FIR but allowed him interim relief to approach the Gauhati High Court.
“In so far as the challenge to the FIR is concerned, we are not inclined to entertain. However, we are inclined to give interim protection to the petitioner for a period of four weeks so as to enable him to approach the high court,” the bench observed.
The court also issued a notice to the Centre on Sharma’s separate prayer challenging the constitutional validity of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, PTI reported.
Appearing for Sharma, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that Section 152 of the BNS has become an “omnibus provision” that could be invoked arbitrarily.
The bench, however, maintained that the appropriate forum for seeking relief in the FIR matter was the Gauhati High Court.
“Why are you bypassing the high court?” the bench asked.
Sibal responded by cautioning that another FIR could be lodged in the meantime. The bench noted that even if it were to entertain the plea, that possibility would still remain.
Referring to an earlier case pending before the top court involving similar legal questions, Sibal said: “Some uniformity should be there.”
The bench reassured: “We will protect you,” but insisted Sharma must approach the high court.
“This is not fair. What has the journalist done?” Sibal pressed further. “The society looks up to this court. Please don’t do this… What message are we sending?”
The court agreed only to issue notice on the plea concerning the constitutional challenge to Section 152 of BNS, reported PTI.
The petition, filed through advocate Sumeer Sodhi, stated that the FIR, dated August 21, was based on a complaint by a private individual over a video uploaded by Sharma on his YouTube channel. The video allegedly questioned the allocation of 3,000 bighas of tribal land to a private entity and “exposed government decisions that affect tribal land rights, environmental concerns, and democratic accountability.”
The plea contended that Sharma’s statements were backed by facts and included original footage of speeches made by the Assam Chief Minister. It emphasised that at no point did Sharma incite violence, disorder, or insurrection.
“The criticism of government policies, functioning, or political strategies does not amount to an offence under Section 152 BNS,” the plea argued.
It added that in a democratic system, public scrutiny of elected representatives is not only expected but essential — and criminalising such scrutiny threatens journalistic freedom.
Calling the FIR a “classic case of misuse and abuse” of Section 152, the plea described it as a tool to stifle dissent. It also noted that the provision carries the punishment of life imprisonment.
The petition argued that Section 152 is essentially a reincarnation of the sedition law (Section 124A IPC), which is currently under judicial review by the Supreme Court for its vagueness and misuse.
It referred to the top court’s earlier observation asking authorities to refrain from filing FIRs under Section 124A or proceed with investigations under it, pending review.
“The instant case is not an isolated instance but forms part of a larger pattern of repeated misuse of criminal provisions akin to sedition against journalists and critics of the government,” the petition submitted.
It concluded by stating that Sharma merely exercised his constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech and of the press, by reporting and commenting on publicly available political speeches.
