Source: Indian Express 

Introduction 

The arrest of 22-year-old law student from Pune over social media remarks highlights the ongoing tension between free expression and religious sensitivity in India's digital landscape. This case raises important questions about proportionate legal response and the protection of democratic discourse. 

What was the Background of the Case? 

• A fourth-year B.B.A LL.B Honours student at Symbiosis Law School, Pune, was arrested by Kolkata police from Gurgaon on Friday afternoon for allegedly hurting religious sentiments through her remarks on Operation Sindoor posted on social media. 
• Following public outcry, she had already deleted the offensive Instagram post and issued an unconditional apology on X (Twitter), stating her remarks were personal feelings, and she never intended to hurt anyone. 
• Despite her corrective actions, an FIR was registered at Garden Reach Police station on May 15. Police alleged that when they attempted to serve notice,  
• She and her family had "absconded," leading to the issuance of an arrest warrant. She was subsequently arrested in Gurgaon and produced before a local court for transit remand to Kolkata. 

What were the Legal Provisions Referenced Section under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ? 

• Section 196(1)(a): Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or community.  
  • This provision targets hate speech and carries punishment of up to 3 years imprisonment, fine, or both. It requires proof of deliberate intent to promote enmity and actual potential for creating hostility between communities. 
• Section 299: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens. This offense is punishable with imprisonment up to 1 year, fine, or both. 
  •  The prosecution must establish deliberate and malicious intent to wound religious feelings, not mere inadvertent offense. 
• Section 352: Intentional insult with the intent to provoke a breach of peace. This provision covers acts done with knowledge that such acts are likely to provoke breach of peace. Punishment includes imprisonment up to 2 years, fine up to ₹5000, or both. 
• Section 353(1)(c): Statements that incite public mischief through false information. This addresses circulation of false or misleading information likely to cause fear or alarm to the public. The offense carries imprisonment up to 1 year, fine, or both, with enhanced punishment if it affects public order or state security. 

These provisions collectively create a comprehensive framework addressing hate speech, religious offense, public order disruption, and misinformation, with overlapping jurisdictions allowing multiple charges for single incidents. 

Conclusion 

The case demonstrates the complex intersection of digital expression, religious sensitivity, and legal enforcement in modern India. While protecting communal harmony remains vital, the proportionality of legal response and protection of democratic discourse require careful balance to preserve both social cohesion and fundamental rights.