Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Thursday granted journalist Abhisar Sharma interim protection from arrest for four weeks in a criminal case registered against him in Assam over a video questioning the state government’s decision to allot 3,000 bighas of tribal land to a private cement factory.
The court asked Sharma to approach the Gauhati High Court to challenge the FIR.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Kotiswar Singh observed, “We will protect you, but why are you bypassing the High Court?” The bench clarified that it was not inclined to entertain the challenge to the FIR directly but provided a four-week window for Sharma to approach the high court.
The FIR was filed by a private individual after Sharma’s video, based on a Gauhati High Court proceeding, criticised the Assam government for pursuing divisive politics rather than addressing issues of public importance.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Vivek Tankha, representing Sharma, highlighted that the FIR invokes Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), a re-enacted provision akin to sedition under Section 124-A of the IPC.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Sibal argued that Section 152 has been misused to target journalists and that petitions challenging the law are already pending before the Supreme Court. The bench agreed to tag Sharma’s petition with these ongoing matters.
In his plea, Sharma described the FIR as “a classic case of misuse of Section 152 BNS to stifle dissent and journalistic freedom.” He emphasised that the provision, which carries life imprisonment, is being misapplied to penalise journalistic critique of government policies.
Sharma, who has over three decades of experience in journalism and runs a YouTube channel with nine million subscribers, argued that exercising the right to free speech cannot amount to an attack on the country’s integrity or sovereignty.
“Criticism of a chief minister’s policies and politics cannot by any stretch be treated as an attack on the unity of India. Criminalising dissent undermines the constitutional guarantee of free expression,” he said.
The petition further stated that Sharma’s video did not disparage any religion, despite allegations of hurting religious sentiments with references to “Ram Rajya.” Sharma clarified that the critique targeted the political appropriation of the concept rather than any faith or religious practice.
The video, he added, exposed communal rhetoric used by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma in public speeches and urged citizens to focus on governance issues rather than polarising narratives.
Sharma maintained that he did not incite violence, insurrection, or public disorder, and that his statements fell well within the constitutional right to free expression.