SC Grants Journalist Abhisar Sharma Interim Protection, Refuses to Quash BNS FIR, But Agrees to Examine Law's Validity

New Delhi - The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a petition filed by journalist Abhisar Sharma seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him by the Assam Police under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. However, in a significant move, the Court granted him four weeks of interim protection from arrest, allowing him time to seek appropriate relief from the Gauhati High Court.

The bench, comprising Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh, also issued a notice on Sharma's concurrent challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 152 of the BNS, which deals with acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. This aspect of the petition was tagged with a similar pending case, indicating the apex court's intent to scrutinize the controversial provision that critics fear could be used to suppress dissent.

The case places the spotlight squarely on the application of the newly enacted criminal laws and the delicate balance between freedom of speech, journalistic critique, and national security.

The Hearing: A Plea for Uniformity vs. Adherence to Procedure

The FIR was lodged against Sharma following a video he published on his YouTube channel. In the video, he criticized the Assam state government's land allotment policies, referencing a Gauhati High Court case concerning 3,000 bighas of land allocated to a private cement company. Sharma alleged that the government, led by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, had given 9,000 bighas of land to the Adani Group and accused the administration of "communal politics."

Based on a complaint by one Alok Baruah, the Assam Police booked Sharma under Sections 152 (endangering sovereignty), 196 (promoting enmity between different groups), and 197 (imputations prejudicial to national integration and security) of the BNS.

Appearing for Sharma, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal launched a spirited argument, contending that Section 152 of the BNS has become an "omnibus" provision invoked indiscriminately against critics of the government. He urged the Supreme Court to intervene directly, citing its recent decision to grant interim protection to Siddharth Varadarajan and Karan Thapar of 'The Wire' in a similar case also involving an FIR by the Assam police under the same section.

Sibal pressed for consistency in the Court's approach. "This is not fair...what has the journalist done? This Court is dealing with the matter...some uniformity must be there," he argued, expressing concern that relegating his client to the High Court could expose him to further FIRs. "They will lodge another FIR, then what will I do? Don't do this. Society looks upto this Court, please don't do this."

Despite Sibal's impassioned plea, the bench remained firm on the procedural hierarchy, questioning why Sharma could not first approach the jurisdictional High Court for quashing the FIR, a standard practice in criminal law. While refusing to quash the FIR itself, the bench acknowledged the gravity of the situation by granting a four-week shield from coercive action, thereby ensuring Sharma's liberty while he pursues his legal remedies in Gauhati.

Legal and Constitutional Implications: Scrutiny on BNS Section 152

The Supreme Court's decision to issue notice on the challenge to the vires of Section 152 BNS is arguably the most consequential aspect of the day's proceedings. This provision, which replaces the sedition law (Section 124A of the IPC), has been a subject of intense debate among legal scholars and civil rights advocates. Critics argue that its broad and vaguely worded language—criminalizing acts that "endanger sovereignty or unity and integrity of India"—is susceptible to misuse and could have a chilling effect on free speech.

By tagging Sharma's plea with the pending challenge from 'The Wire' editors, the Supreme Court has consolidated the judicial examination of this critical new law. The outcome of this constitutional challenge will have far-reaching implications, setting a precedent for how criticism of government policies is treated under the new penal code and defining the contours of protected speech in the BNS era.

The sections invoked against Sharma are potent: * Section 152 BNS: Punishes acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India with imprisonment up to life. * Section 196 BNS: Corresponds to Section 153A of the IPC, dealing with promoting enmity between different groups. * Section 197 BNS: Corresponds to Section 153B of the IPC, concerning imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration.

The application of these sections to a journalistic video analyzing government land policy highlights the friction between the state's security imperatives and the media's role as a public watchdog.

The Larger Trend: A Pattern of Scrutiny

This case does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of a broader pattern where journalists and media houses critical of government actions have faced legal challenges, particularly from the Assam police. The fact that the Supreme Court has had to intervene and grant interim protection in multiple such cases involving Section 152 BNS suggests a developing trend that the higher judiciary is closely monitoring.

While the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle of approaching the High Court first for remedies like FIR quashing, its simultaneous grant of interim protection and its decision to hear the constitutional challenge signal a nuanced approach. It respects judicial procedure while also acting as a safeguard against potential misuse of state power, ensuring that the petitioner's fundamental rights are not rendered illusory during the legal process.

The legal community will now keenly watch the proceedings in both the Gauhati High Court regarding Sharma's specific FIR and the Supreme Court's consolidated hearing on the constitutionality of BNS Section 152. The latter promises to be a landmark judicial review of a cornerstone provision of India's new criminal justice framework.

Case Details: * Case Title: ABHISAR SHARMA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. * Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No. 338/2025 * Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Kotiswar Singh * Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal; AoR Sumeer Sodhi