Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR

Swift Summary

• The Supreme Court of India granted journalist Abhisar Sharma four weeks of interim protection from arrest in an FIR lodged by Assam Police under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
• The FIR pertains to Sharma’s YouTube video posted on August 8, 2025, criticizing Assam’s decision to allocate tribal land for a cement plant, claiming it could incite communal disharmony and undermine trust in the State.
• Sharma has been directed to approach the Gauhati High Court for relief.
• Section 152 BNS criminalizes acts endangering India’s sovereignty and integrity. It has faced criticism for alleged misuse against dissenters, mirroring concerns around the now-suspended sedition law (Section 124A IPC).
• Senior advocate Kapil Sibal represented Sharma, arguing that such provisions are frequently invoked to curb dissent. The Bench sought the Union Government’s response regarding challenges to Section 152’s validity.
• In his petition, Sharma termed his prosecution as disproportionate and an abuse of power designed to stifle journalistic freedom.

Indian Opinion Analysis

The Supreme Court’s interim protection decision underscores its cautious approach in balancing individual rights with state authority. While directing Abhisar Sharma to seek relief at a lower jurisdiction emphasizes judicial protocol, accepting petitions questioning Section 152 signals willingness for broader constitutional scrutiny.this development revisits ongoing debates about free speech versus state security laws. Critics argue that ambiguous provisions like Section 152 create vulnerabilities for misuse against legitimate dissent or journalistic critique. Similar concerns were raised with sedition law under IPC Section 124A-temporarily suspended pending a final ruling on its validity-indicating systemic tension between civil liberties and governmental control.

India faces critical questions about safeguarding democratic norms while addressing perceived threats to order and unity. Legal clarity will be essential in ensuring these laws are not weaponized arbitrarily but applied judiciously in alignment with constitutional guarantees of free expression.

Read more at: Source Article