The Scales of Justice: Selective Outrage in the Sharmistha Panoli Arrest

The arrest of 22-year-old law student and social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli has ignited a firestorm over freedom of expression, religious sensitivities, and the troubling pattern of selective law enforcement in India. Panoli’s detention by Kolkata Police on May 30th, following a controversial Instagram video about Operation Sindoor, would be a straightforward legal matter were it not for the glaring double standards it exposes in how authorities treat offences against different religious communities.

Panoli’s video, responding to a Pakistani user questioning India’s military actions after the Pahalgam terror attack, contained abusive language directed at Prophet Muhammad. She swiftly deleted the content and issued an unconditional public apology the next day, acknowledging her words were hurtful and promising caution in future posts. Despite this, Kolkata Police pursued her across state lines, arresting her in Gurugram and securing 14 days of judicial custody. The charges are severe: promoting religious enmity, deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings, intentional insult to provoke breach of peace, and inciting public mischief under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita .

The Law’s Uneven Hand

While Kolkata Police defend their actions as procedurally sound, citing Panoli’s alleged absconding and a court-issued warrant, the context reveals disturbing selectivity. This rigor vanishes when Hindu deities are insulted, particularly by figures linked to certain political parties:

TMC’s Record of Impunity: BJP LoP Suvendu Adhikari highlighted the stark contrast between Panoli’s swift arrest and the inaction against TMC leaders. Despite over 200 FIRs, MP Mahua Moitra faced zero consequences for describing Goddess Kali as a “meat-eating, alcohol-accepting Goddess.” Similarly, MP Saayoni Ghosh’s derogatory social media posts about Lord Shiva (Mahadev) and multiple FIRs against Minister Firhad Hakim yielded no arrests. TMC Chief Mamata Banerjee herself labelled Sanatana Dharma “Gandha Dharm” (dirty religion) without any legal repercussions.

AIMIM’s Hypocritical Crusade: AIMIM spokesperson Waris Pathan, who aggressively campaigned for Panoli’s arrest after flagging her video to the Home Minister, exemplifies selective outrage. His party remains silent on the vile anti-Hindu rhetoric of figures like Wazahat Khan, the complainant against Panoli, who runs the Kolkata-based Rashidi Foundation. Khan’s social media history brims with unchecked bigotry: mocking the Kamakhya Devi temple as a place where Brahmins worship a “chopped vagina,” labelling Holi celebrations “rapist culture,” and spewing graphic abuse against Lord Krishna.
– **SP’s Weaponized Demands**: Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Azmi swiftly demanded a strict new law with “at least 10 years punishment” for those hurting religious sentiments during the Panoli controversy. Yet, his party shows no such zeal when Hindu sentiments are targeted. This mirrors Congress MP Karti Chidambaram’s criticism of Panoli’s arrest as a “blatant misuse of police powers” while his party remains passive when its allies insult Hindu practices .

Table: Contrasting Legal Responses to Religious Insults

Systemic Hypocrisy and Appeasement Politics

Kolkata Police’s justification – that Panoli’s arrest stemmed from her “hate speech” and evasion of notices, not her criticism of Pakistan – rings hollow amidst their inaction against Wazahat Khan. Despite overwhelming evidence of Khan’s derogatory posts against Hindu deities (predating Panoli’s video), and at least two formal complaints filed against him, Kolkata Police have not moved against their own city resident. This is the same force that deployed resources to track Panoli 1,500 km away in Gurugram. As BJP IT cell head Amit Malviya noted, this isn’t merely about Bengal; it’s about “how a young Hindu woman is being targeted to appease a vote bank”.

Andhra Pradesh Deputy CM Pawan Kalyan aptly framed the core issue: “Secularism isn’t a shield for some and a sword for others. It must be a two-way street.” His question resonates powerfully: “Where is the outrage when our faith is called ‘Gandha Dharm’? Where is their apology? Where is their swift arrest?”. The silence of self-styled secular parties and the selective urgency of police forces in cases involving insults to Hinduism reveal a cynical calculus where electoral appeasement trumps constitutional equality.

The Global Lens and Democratic Health

The international attention from figures like Dutch MP Geert Wilders, who condemned Panoli’s arrest as a “disgrace for freedom of speech,” underscores how this case transcends domestic politics. It reflects a global struggle to balance religious sensitivities with free expression. However, India’s specific failure lies not in enforcing laws against hate speech, but in implementing them unequally. When a student influencer faces harsher consequences for an apologised remark than politicians and activists enjoy for serial bigotry against a majority faith, it erodes public trust in institutions and fuels majoritarian resentment.

The Panoli controversy is more than a legal dispute; it is a litmus test for India’s commitment to uniform justice. Unless authorities demonstrate equal rigour in prosecuting offences against “ALL” religions, particularly pursuing powerful figures shielded by political patronage, this episode will remain a dark testament to the weaponisation of blasphemy norms and the normalisation of selective secularism. The nation, indeed, is watching.