New Delhi: The Supreme Court today granted interim protection from arrest for four weeks to journalist Abhisar Sharma in connection with a case registered by the Assam Police over a YouTube video criticising the State government.
A Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, however, refused to entertain Sharma’s plea to quash the first information report (FIR) lodged against him under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly endangering the sovereignty of the nation and other offences.
The Court directed him to approach the Gauhati High Court for that relief.
“FIR you challenge before the High Court. Why are you bypassing the High Court? We’ll give you protection, you go to the High Court. Just because you are a journalist…” the Bench orally remarked.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Sharma, argued that multiple FIRs could be filed against him, urging the top court to intervene. “Society looks up to this Court. Please don’t do this. This is not done. What message are we sending?” he submitted.
Rejecting the plea to quash the FIR, the Court said, “So far as the challenge to the FIR is concerned, we are not inclined to interfere.
However, we are inclined to give interim protection to the petitioner for a period of four weeks so he can approach the High Court.”
At the same time, the Court issued notice to the Centre on Sharma’s separate challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 152 BNS, which deals with the offence of endangering the sovereignty of the nation.
This aspect was tagged with similar petitions already pending before the Supreme Court.
The FIR against Sharma, filed on August 21, invoked Sections 152 (endangering sovereignty), 196 (promoting enmity between groups), and 197 (statements prejudicial to national integration) of the BNS.
It alleged that he ridiculed the government, mocked the concept of Ram Rajya, and promoted divisive sentiments while criticising the State for allotting 3,000 bighas of tribal land to a private entity.
In his petition, filed through advocate Sumeer Sodhi, contended that the FIR reflected a misuse of sedition-like provisions to silence dissent and curb press freedom. It was argued that his remarks were fact-based, supported by video clips of speeches by the Assam Chief Minister, and did not incite violence or disorder.
The plea further described Section 152 BNS as a reincarnation of the repealed sedition law under Section 124A IPC, calling it vague, overbroad, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution.
It was also stressed that criminal prosecution under a provision carrying life imprisonment for a journalistic video was grossly disproportionate.
