In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court recently declared that an FIR against a 19-year-old engineering student from Pune, charged for sharing an objectionable social media post about ‘Operation Sindoor,’ cannot be simply dismissed. The court emphasized that neither her quick deletion of the post, her subsequent apology, nor her excellent academic record were sufficient grounds to quash the serious charges.
A Division Bench, presided over by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, was hearing the student’s appeal to have the FIR, filed by Pune Police in May, set aside. Chief Justice Chandrashekhar sternly stated, “This is a very serious matter. The charges are serious. While her youth might be considered for bail, it cannot be a basis to quash the FIR. Being a bright student is commendable, but it doesn’t nullify the complaint.”
The student’s legal counsel argued that she had merely reshared the post, recognized its inappropriate nature, and promptly removed it. They highlighted that the original creator of the post was not charged, and that her client acted without any malicious intent (mens rea).
However, the Bench countered, “Mens rea is irrelevant. The subsequent deletion of the post is also irrelevant. In fact, removing the post might even complicate her situation further.” The case has now been adjourned for two weeks, with Additional Public Prosecutor Mankunwar Deshmukh instructed to present the case diary in a sealed envelope.
Understanding the Case
The incident involved an IT undergraduate from Sinhgad Academy of Engineering, affiliated with Savitribai Phule Pune University. She was arrested on May 9 after reposting an Instagram message that criticized the Indian government’s role in escalating Indo-Pak hostilities during ‘Operation Sindoor.’ Despite deleting the post within two hours and issuing a public apology, she was taken into custody by Kondhwa Police. Her college also rusticated her on May 6, alleging she harbored “anti-national sentiments.”
Her current petition, submitted through advocate Farhana Shah, seeks to challenge both the initial FIR and the college’s rustication order.
Previously, on May 27, a vacation Bench comprising Justices Gauri Godse and Somasekhar Sundaresan had strongly criticized both the State and the educational institution for their actions. Describing the arrest and suspension as “radical” and “absolutely shocking,” the earlier Bench questioned, “Are you ruining a student’s life simply for expressing an opinion? How can an institution rusticate her without even hearing her side? Is the sole purpose of an educational body just academic instruction? Allow her to complete her remaining three exams.” They ordered her release from Yerwada Central Prison and temporarily suspended the rustication, ensuring she could sit for her examinations.