Abhisar Sharma versus Union of India and Others, 2025
The judgment implicitly highlights the tension between freedom of expression and national security provisions in criminal law, a recurring theme in Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
29 August 2025
Judges
Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
Journalist and YouTuber Abhisar Sharma made a video criticizing the Assam state government for alleged communal politics and questioned the government’s allotment of 3000 bighas of land to a private company, Mahabal Cements.
-
Sharma further accused the Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of favoring the Adani Group by allotting 9000 bighas of land.
-
A complaint by Alok Baruah led to the registration of an FIR by Assam police under Sections 152 (endangering sovereignty), 196 (promoting enmity), and 197 (prejudicial imputations) of the BNS.
-
Sharma challenged the FIR’s legality and the vires (constitutional validity) of Section 152 BNS in the Supreme Court.
Issues
-
Whether the FIR registered against Abhisar Sharma under Section 152 BNS for his video criticizing the government was legally sustainable?
-
Whether the Supreme Court should entertain the challenge to the FIR or direct Sharma to seek relief before the Gauhati High Court?
-
Whether Section 152 BNS is an omnibus provision being misused to suppress dissent and target critics?
-
The scope and constitutional validity of Section 152 BNS in light of freedom of expression and public interest?
Judgement
-
The Supreme Court refused to entertain the challenge to the FIR registered against Abhisar Sharma by Assam Police under Section 152 BNS.
-
The Court granted interim protection for four weeks to Sharma to prevent arrest and directed him to approach the Gauhati High Court for appropriate relief.
-
The Court issued notice on Sharma’s challenge to the vires of Section 152 BNS and tagged the matter with a similar ongoing case involving other journalists.
-
The bench, comprising Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh, emphasized the importance of judicial propriety by encouraging initial relief in the High Court.
-
The Court acknowledged Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal’s submissions regarding the broad and possibly misused nature of Section 152 BNS, but maintained that Supreme Court intervention at this stage was premature.
Held
-
The Supreme Court held that it would not interfere at this stage with the FIR registered against Abhisar Sharma.
-
It granted interim protection from arrest for four weeks, allowing Sharma to move the Gauhati High Court.
-
The Court recognized the ongoing challenges to Section 152 BNS and took cognizance of their seriousness by issuing notice and tagging the case accordingly.
Analysis
-
The Court’s decision reflects a balanced approach—acknowledging concerns about Section 152 BNS while respecting the procedural hierarchy by directing Sharma to seek remedy before the High Court first.
-
The refusal to entertain the FIR challenge directly in the Supreme Court underscores the principle that High Courts are the appropriate forums for early stage relief in such criminal matters.
-
The interim protection granted demonstrates the Court’s sensitivity to the risk of harassment or misuse of legal provisions against journalists and critics, especially when political and communal contexts are involved.
-
By tagging the case with other similar challenges, the Court signals that the constitutional validity and scope of Section 152 BNS will be scrutinized holistically in due course.
-
The judgment implicitly highlights the tension between freedom of expression and national security provisions in criminal law, a recurring theme in Indian constitutional jurisprudence.