Journalist Abhisar Sharma Challenges Assam Police FIR in Supreme Court Over BNS Section 152
New Delhi, India – August 27, 2025
Prominent journalist and YouTuber Abhisar Sharma has approached the Supreme Court of India to challenge a First Information Report (FIR) filed against him by the Assam Police under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, a provision criticized as a rebranded version of the colonial-era sedition law. The FIR, lodged on August 22, 2025, accuses Sharma of making inflammatory remarks in a YouTube video that allegedly endangered India’s sovereignty, promoted communal discord, and discredited the Assam and Union governments. Sharma’s petition, set to be heard on August 28, 2025, not only seeks to quash the FIR but also contests the constitutional validity of Section 152 BNS, raising significant questions about press freedom and the limits of free speech in India.
The Controversial Video and FIR
The case originates from a YouTube video uploaded by Sharma on August 8, 2025, where he critiqued the Assam government’s policies and Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s political approach. In the video, Sharma referenced a Gauhati High Court observation by Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, who questioned the state’s allocation of 3,000 bighas of tribal land in Dima Hasao to Mahabal Cements for mining. Sharma further alleged that the Assam government had allotted 9,000 bighas to the Adani Group and accused Sarma of engaging in “communal politics” to distract from such decisions. He also criticized the invocation of “Ram Rajya” as a political tool and claimed the government relied on Hindu-Muslim polarization.
The video prompted a complaint by Alok Baruah, a 23-year-old Guwahati resident and reported member of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Baruah alleged that Sharma’s remarks were made with “mala fide intent” to malign the Assam and Union governments, provoke communal tensions, and endanger national unity. The Guwahati Crime Branch subsequently registered the FIR at its Cyber Police Station, invoking Sections 152 (endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India), 196 (promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion), and 197 (imputations prejudicial to national integration) of the BNS.
In response, Sharma took to social media platform X, calling the FIR “completely baseless” and vowing to fight it legally. He defended his video as a legitimate critique grounded in judicial observations and Sarma’s public statements, asserting that his remarks were factual and not intended to incite disharmony.
Supreme Court Petition
Sharma, represented by Advocate on Record Sumeer Sodhi, filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 338/2025, titled Abhisar Sharma Versus Union of India and Ors., urging the Supreme Court to quash the FIR and declare Section 152 BNS unconstitutional. The petition argues that the provision is overly vague and grants excessive latitude to law enforcement, enabling its misuse to suppress dissent and journalistic expression. Sharma contends that his video constituted protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and that the FIR represents an attempt to silence critical voices.
The case is listed for hearing on August 28, 2025, before a bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh. The petition comes at a time when the Supreme Court is already examining the vires of Section 152 BNS in a related case involving journalists Siddharth Varadarajan and Karan Thapar of The Wire, who were granted interim protection from arrest in a similar FIR filed by Assam Police under the same provision.
Broader Context and Press Freedom Concerns
The FIR against Sharma is part of a series of legal actions by the Assam Police against journalists critical of the BJP-led state government. Earlier in August 2025, Varadarajan and Thapar faced summons in connection with an FIR over their reporting on alleged communal issues, also under Sections 152, 196, and 197 BNS. The Supreme Court’s intervention in that case, granting protection from coercive action, has raised questions about the Assam Police’s repeated use of these provisions against media professionals.
Media organizations and civil society groups have strongly condemned the FIR against Sharma. The Press Club of India (PCI) described it as a “direct assault” on press freedom, urging its immediate withdrawal and criticizing the Assam Police for ignoring the Supreme Court’s directive in the The Wire case. The PCI highlighted similar actions against other journalists, including the removal of a YouTube channel operated by senior journalist Ruben Banerjee, as evidence of a broader pattern of targeting critical voices.
The Digipub News India Foundation echoed these concerns, labeling the FIR an “attack on democratic values” and calling for the charges to be dropped. The Editors Guild of India and opposition leaders, including Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate and Rashtriya Janata Dal’s Priyanka Bharti, have also expressed solidarity with Sharma, framing the case as an attempt to intimidate independent journalists.
On X, discussions about the case have gained traction, with users praising Sharma’s decision to challenge the FIR and Section 152 BNS in court. One post described the case as a “test for India’s democracy,” emphasizing the need for a free press to hold power accountable. Another user questioned the selective application of laws against journalists while political figures make divisive statements with impunity.
Legal and Political Implications
Section 152 BNS, which replaced the sedition law (Section 124A IPC) suspended by the Supreme Court in May 2022, has been criticized for its expansive and ambiguous language. Legal experts argue that terms like “endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India” and “knowingly” lower the threshold for prosecution compared to the IPC’s sedition provision, which required clear intent to incite disaffection. Critics, including those cited in a Telegraph editorial, warn that the provision’s vagueness allows authorities to target legitimate criticism of government policies, creating a chilling effect on free speech.
The Assam government, led by Chief Minister Sarma, has defended the use of such laws, arguing they are necessary to maintain public order and curb divisive rhetoric. However, the repeated invocation of BNS provisions against journalists has fueled accusations of authoritarian governance and selective enforcement. The Supreme Court’s handling of Sharma’s petition could have far-reaching implications, potentially shaping the legal framework for freedom of expression in India and clarifying the scope of Section 152 BNS.
Looking Ahead
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear Sharma’s case on August 28, 2025, legal observers anticipate that the bench may consider granting interim protection from arrest, as it did for Varadarajan and Thapar. The broader challenge to Section 152’s constitutionality could also prompt a deeper judicial review of the BNS, especially in light of the 2022 suspension of the sedition law. The outcome of this case may influence how law enforcement agencies across India apply similar provisions against journalists and dissenting voices.
Sharma’s fight in the Supreme Court underscores a critical juncture for press freedom in India, highlighting the tension between state authority and the right to critique governance. As the nation watches, the case serves as a reminder of the enduring importance of a free and fearless press in upholding democratic values.
For More News Updates Follow Us On Www.tconews.in
