Today, On 5th June, Calcutta High Court stops live updates of law student Sharmistha Panoli’s bail hearing, raising questions over procedural sensitivity, digital reporting limits, and the judiciary’s control over real-time courtroom transparency.
The Calcutta High Court resumed hearing the petition filed by law student Sharmishtha, who had been arrested in connection with a controversial video shared during the Operation Sindoor discourse, which allegedly contained offensive remarks against Muslims.
She was previously denied interim bail, and now she is again seeking relief through the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Calcutta High Court stopped the live update feed during the bail hearing of law student Sharmistha Panoli, who was arrested in connection with a controversial video shared during Operation Sindoor.
Sharmistha’s legal team approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking interim bail after her earlier plea had been rejected.
During the hearing, Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury made strong observations about the case and asked several pointed questions to the state.
The Bengal Police had argued,
“The petitioner, who was evading arrest, was apprehended outside the state,” and while the usual recourse is to seek regular bail, the petitioner has approached the court under Article 226.”
They also maintained that all procedures had been followed during the arrest and that “reading out the warrant at time of arrest is sufficient,” citing a recent Supreme Court order.
Justice Chowdhury, however, was not satisfied with the explanation and remarked,
“Simply because warrant was issued we can’t imagine that ground of arrest was given.”
He clearly stated,
“Warrant doesn’t give any grounds,”
Also questioned the legality of the arrest process.
In a powerful remark addressing the state’s failure to act on Sharmistha’s own complaint, the judge asked,
“What arrest have been made basis her complaint? This is about modesty of the young lady. You would be ashamed to see all these. I am saying this in public. After all she is a law student.”
As Senior Advocate D.P. Singh argued that her arrest was illegal and that she had been under threat, he added that she was compelled to leave for Delhi at midnight because her home and her father’s address were being identified and circulated.
The High Court, which had initially allowed media and observers to follow the case closely, suddenly stopped the live feed midway through the proceedings, citing sensitivity around ongoing arguments and potential misreporting.
No formal reason was disclosed in open court.
Earlier, Law student Sharmistha Panoli was denied ad interim bail by the Calcutta High Court on Tuesday.
She had approached the court challenging her 14-day judicial custody after being arrested for allegedly uploading a video that hurt religious sentiments, linked to the controversial #OperationSindoor.
The case was heard by Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, who presided over intense arguments between the petitioner and the state.
While hearing the matter, the Court remarked, “Heavens will not fall in two days,” indicating that the urgency shown by the petitioner was not justified.
The bench denied the request for immediate relief, stating that the matter would be taken up in due course as per legal procedure.
The incident originated from a video Panoli posted on May 14, 2025, in response to a question from a Pakistani follower regarding India’s military actions after the Pahalgam terror attack.
The video reportedly included inflammatory and derogatory comments about Islam and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), quickly going viral and resulting in a strong criticism, including death and rape threats aimed at Panoli.
Panoli was arrested by the Kolkata Police in Gurgaon, Haryana, on May 30. She was then transported to Kolkata under transit remand and has been placed in judicial custody until June 13.
After her arrest, Panoli was brought before a Kolkata court and placed in judicial custody until June 13.
The incident has caused political controversy, with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) condemning the arrest, highlighting that Panoli had deleted the video and issued an apology. Reports of Khan’s disappearance emerged following multiple complaints lodged against him in various locations, including Kolkata.
The decision to stop the live updates has debate about judicial transparency and digital access, especially in high-profile cases involving fundamental rights, free speech, and alleged misuse of the criminal justice system.
Case Title: SHAMISHTA PANOLI @ SHARMISHTA PANOLI RAJ vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS., WPA/12361/2025
Read Attachment