Keeping Pace with Legal Change
The Gauhati High Court, in a crucial case, has quashed an FIR against journalist Kongkon Borthakur because it is imperative…
The Delhi High Court put on hold the release of ‘Udaipur Files’ on July 10, 2025, on charges of procedural non-compliance. Petitioners Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and journalist Prashant Tandon objected to the CBFC certification of the film for promoting communal disharmony. The Court instructed them to approach the Centre under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The release of the film is stuck until the government makes a decision within a week after hearing both parties. The decision highlights statutory remedy and a judicious balance between free speech and public order.
In Sharmistha Panoli’s case, police charged her under Sections 196, 297, and 300 of the BNS after she criticized religious practices online. The arrest sparks debate over free speech, intent requirements, overcriminalization, and judicial safeguards under India’s new criminal law.
A swift legal and judicial backlash was sparked as a result of the insulting remarks made by BJP minister Kunwar Vijay Shah against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. These remarks were made in accordance with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The authorities brought attention to the serious nature of communalized and defamatory speech by invoking Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c). This speech poses a threat to national security, public tranquility, and integration. The First Information Report (FIR) and the subsequent judicial inspection both serve to convey the message that political speech is associated with significant obligations and that the new criminal code will not hesitate to penalize instances of transgression. As India continues to negotiate the issues of diversity and democracy, the Qureshi case stands as a landmark in terms of defining the boundaries of what constitutes acceptable public debate and protecting the dignity of its individuals and institutions.
