In India, the right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian constitution but the freedom of speech and expression is not given absolutely, it has some restrictions. The recent controversy surrounding S. Panoli has reignited a national debate and raised a question on freedom of speech and expression.

Panoli, a 22 years old law student from Symbiosis Law School, Pune and a social media influencer was handcuffed for allegedly uploading a communal video related to “Operation Sindoor”. The video went viral across India within minutes. The video was condemned as it allegedly made derogatory remarks and comments on a religious community and prophet Muhammed. She deleted the uploaded video later and issued an unconditional apology on social media. Later, news was circulated, Panoli and her family were reportedly untraceable and the court issued an arrest warrant. After arrest, she was produced before a Gurugram court and brought to Kolkata on transit remand. A court in Kolkata’s Alipore area has sent her to 14 days judicial custody. The court rejected the State’s request for police custody. The court sent the student to judicial custody after she was brought to Kolkata in connection with the video.

In 2021, Munawar Faruqui, a stand-up comedian was arrested in Indore over jokes allegedly made about Hindu deities. He spent almost a month in jail without trial, his shows got cancelled across the country.

The booker prize winning author, Arundhati Roy faced backlash for her public statements on Kashmir and India’s military presence. Multiple FIR’s were filed.

In May 2022, Nupur Sharma, made controversial remarks about prophet Muhammad during a televised debate. She was the national spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party until June 2022. Her controversial comments outraged the nation widely which led to nationwide protests.

These were the few incidents which reignited the debates on freedom of speech and hate speech.

Article 19(1) (a) provides for the freedom of speech and expression whereas article 19(2) enlists the reasonable restrictions, which may impose by the state. The reasonable restrictions include sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offense, security of the state, friendly relation with foreign states.

The recent incidents put forward a troubling pattern. In recent years, artists, journalists, comedians and citizens have faced backlash for expressing views which leads to threat on freedom of speech and expression. From stand-up comics being cancelled to journalists being jailed, the freedom appears to be shrinking.

Panoli’s case shows us how easily art or words can be misunderstood, how one person’s expression can become another’s offense. In globalised world the outrage spreads like wildfire. When an artist just expressing a thought, they face threats, Police cases and online abuse. In such atmosphere, People will start holding back from expressing their opinions. They will stop sharing honest opinions or bold ideas merely because they are scared of the unprecedent repercussions. This kind of fear slowly silences the voices and weakens the vivid conversations that keeps a democracy healthy.

After the outrage around Panoli’s artwork exploded online and legal repercussions quickly followed. Multiple First Information Report were filed against her across different states. She was accused under sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 that are often used in cases of alleged “offensive” speech.

BNS sections used against Panoli:

1. Section 299 – Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. This law is meant to punish anyone who deliberately insults a religion or its followers. It carries upto 3 years of punishment. But the section is being criticised widely since it is vague and often misused to silence criticism or satire

2. Section 196 (1)(a)– promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

3. Other potential sections include:

   1. Section 353- statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will.

   2. Section 67 of IT Act- If content is considered obscene or harmful when shared online.

When laws like section 299 (hurting religious sentiments) and sections 196 (promoting enmity) are used in cases like Panoli's, Munawar, Nupur Sharma several issues arise:

1.     Vague and broad language

These laws use vague terms like “outrage”,”enmity”, or “malicious intent”. But what counts as “hurting sentiments” or “creating disharmony” is open to broad interpretation.

• What one person sees a criticism or satire, another may see as insult.

• This makes it easy to misuse the law against people whose views, opinions challenge the majority or the ruling ideology.

2.     No need to prove Actual Harm

In several cases, no actual violence or unrest needs to happen. If a few people claim to be offended, FIR can be filed. Even if the artist had no intent to harm, the work was clearly political or symbolic, not hateful.

3.     Encourages Mob Pressure over Legal Principles

Panoli’s case was not a result of calm legal evaluation but it was a result of mob outrage on social media. Online mobs demanded action. Police filed FIRs quickly merely to appease public sentiments not on the solid legal grounds.

4.     Disproportionate impact on Artists and Minorities

Laws like these rarely used against powerful figures. Instead, they often target:

• Independent artists

• Writers, comedians, or activists

• Influencers

The author concludes by saying that Panoli’s case shows how easily anyone’s voice can be silenced in today’s world. One post, one artwork, or one opinion can lead to threats, police cases, and public shaming. Even if there was no bad intention, it makes people scared to speak up, especially about sensitive topics like politics, religion, or inequality. Slowly, many start staying silent not because they agree, but because they don’t want trouble. That’s dangerous for a country like India, where democracy depends on open talks, different views and creative freedom.

If we keep punishing people for expressing themselves, we will end up with a society where only the powerful can speak freely and the rest will whisper in fear.

To move forward, we need to protect both people and ideas. That means fixing unfair laws, stopping online abuse, and letting courts to decide, not angry crowds that what is right and what is wrong. Because when we defend someone’s right to speak, we’re really protecting our own future too.

~Authored by Monika Srivastava

2nd year B.A. LL.B at Central University of South Bihar