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
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
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?
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.