Gauhati High Court Quashes Case Against Influencer Over Black Magic Remarks in Assam

Introduction

In a significant ruling on the boundaries of free speech and social media expression, the Gauhati High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against financial influencer Abhishek Kar. The court, presided over by Justice Pranjal Das, determined that Kar's controversial statements during a YouTube podcast about alleged witchcraft practices in Assam did not violate key provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) , the Information Technology Act , or the Assam Witch Hunting Act. The decision, delivered on February 9, 2026 , emphasizes that mere controversial remarks do not automatically constitute criminal offenses without meeting specific legal ingredients. Kar, the petitioner, faced charges stemming from an FIR filed in January 2025 by the Cyber Police Station in Guwahati .

Case Background

Abhishek Kar, a prominent social media influencer known for financial advice, made remarks during a podcast on YouTuber Riya Upreti's channel in late 2024 . He referenced folklore from Assam's Mayong village, claiming that girls there possessed spiritual powers to transform humans into animals like goats during the day and revert them at night for tantric practices. The statement, intended as an example of esoteric traditions, sparked outrage and led to an FIR on January 11, 2025 , by Inspector Rakesh Kalita at the CID Cyber Police Station . The complaint alleged the remarks were derogatory toward Assamese women, outraging their modesty , and aimed to spread malicious misinformation about Assamese society through a criminal conspiracy .

The case, registered as CID Cyber P.S. Case No. 01/2025, invoked Sections 196(1) and 197(1) of the BNS ( promoting enmity between groups and imputations prejudicial to national integration), Section 353(2) of the BNS (statements conducing to public mischief ), Section 67 of the Information Technology Act (publishing obscene material electronically), and Section 4 of the Assam Witch Hunting (Prohibition, Prevention and Protection) Act, 2015 . An investigation followed, culminating in a charge-sheet filed on September 8, 2025 , under the same provisions. Kar, represented by Senior Counsel H.R.A. Choudhury , approached the Gauhati High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking to quash the proceedings, arguing the statements were misinterpreted folklore without criminal intent. The State of Assam, through Additional Public Prosecutor K. Baishya , opposed the petition.

The core legal questions were whether Kar's statements promoted enmity or ill-will between communities, constituted obscenity or public mischief , or amounted to accusing individuals of witchcraft under the specific statutes.

Arguments Presented

Kar's counsel argued that the petitioner had no malicious intent to harm Assamese sentiments and had promptly issued an unconditional apology to authorities upon learning of the controversy. They contended that the remarks were a neutral reference to historical folklore about Mayong village, not targeted at any specific group or individual, and did not meet the mens rea required for offenses under Sections 196 and 197 of the BNS, which demand promotion of enmity between distinct groups on grounds like religion, race, or language. On Section 353(2) BNS and Section 67 of the IT Act, they asserted the statements were controversial but not obscene or likely to incite public mischief , lacking intent to create alarm or hatred. Regarding the Assam Witch Hunting Act, counsel emphasized that Kar did not label anyone as a "witch" or impute harmful powers to society at large, failing to satisfy the Act's definition. They cited precedents like Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1 and Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025 SCC OnLine SC 678) to support quashing where allegations do not prima facie disclose offenses, arguing the prosecution was malicious and an abuse of process .

The State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor K. Baishya , maintained that the ingredients of the offenses were clearly established. They alleged Kar's statements were part of a conspiracy to defame Assamese women and society, outraging modesty and spreading false rumors via electronic media. The prosecution highlighted incriminating evidence from the investigation, including the video's viral impact, and argued the remarks fostered ill-will against Assamese communities on grounds of regional identity. Under the Witch Hunting Act, they claimed the description stigmatized women as practitioners of harmful black magic. The State urged the court not to intervene, insisting the charge-sheet reflected sufficient grounds for trial and that quashing would undermine protections against hate speech and misinformation .

Legal Analysis

Justice Pranjal Das meticulously dissected the offending statement against each statutory provision, concluding it failed to attract any offense when viewed in context and at face value. For Sections 196 and 197 of the BNS, the court relied on Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. (1997) 7 SCC 431, which mandates that promoting enmity requires involvement of at least two distinct groups (e.g., on religion, race, or language) and clear mens rea to incite hatred or ill-will. The judge noted Kar's remarks referenced folklore from one village without pitting communities against each other or questioning national loyalty, thus lacking the essential elements of disharmony or prejudicial imputations.

On Section 353(2) BNS, the court applied principles from Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand , stressing that statements must intend or likely promote enmity between groups; mere controversy about cultural practices did not suffice. For Section 67 of the IT Act, the analysis drew from general obscenity standards, finding the remarks provocative but not legally obscene, as they lacked explicit sexual content aimed at prurient interest.

Regarding Section 4 of the Assam Witch Hunting Act , Justice Das examined the definition of "witch" under Section 2(g) , which requires an unfounded impression of harmful powers against society. The court clarified that Kar's statement described believed spiritual abilities without accusing individuals of harm or stigmatizing them as witches, distinguishing it from prohibited acts like identification or defamation. The ruling invoked State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) to justify quashing under Section 528 BNSS where allegations, even if taken entirely true, do not prima facie constitute offenses—specifically categories like improbable claims or manifest mala fides. Additional precedents like Mamta Shailesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand (2024 SCC OnLine SC 136) affirmed the court's power to review charge-sheets post-investigation. The decision underscores the need for precise application of hate speech laws to prevent overreach in social media cases, balancing free expression with community protection.

Key Observations

• "The alleged offending statement of the petitioner clearly does not attract the ingredients of Section 197 of BNS." (Para 20)
• "The common feature in both sections being promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will 'between different' religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes and communities, it is necessary that at least two such groups or communities should be involved." (Para 21, citing Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. )
• "In my considered opinion, one of the important ingredients of the definition in Section 2(g) is that an impression is given that such person called a 'witch' has the power to harm anyone in the society at large in any manner. Such an element is missing, in my considered view, in the statement of the petitioner." (Para 27)
• "From a bare reading of the language of Section 153A IPC , it is clear that in order to constitute such offence, the prosecution must come out with a case that the words ‘spoken’ or ‘written’ attributed to the accused, created enmity or bad blood between different groups..." (Para 15, citing Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand )

Court's Decision

The Gauhati High Court allowed the petition on February 9, 2026 , quashing CID Cyber P.S. Case No. 01/2025, the charge-sheet dated September 8, 2025 , and corresponding Sessions Case No. 180/2025 in their entirety. The operative order stated: "Resultantly, this criminal petition is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings... are hereby quashed." This ruling exonerates Kar without trial, reinforcing that prosecutions must align strictly with statutory ingredients to avoid abuse of process .

Practically, it protects influencers discussing cultural folklore from unwarranted charges, provided no intent to harm is evident, and may deter frivolous FIRs under anti-hate and witch-hunting laws. For future cases, it sets a precedent for high courts to scrutinize social media content rigorously under Section 528 BNSS, potentially influencing how platforms and authorities handle viral controversies involving regional sensitivities.