A Tale of Two Students: Sharmistha Panoli vs. Khadija Shaikh

What happens when two students post something controversial online? Should the law treat them the same? In India, it seems not.

This article explores two real-life cases that raise serious questions about equal justice, religious sensitivity, and the urgent need for judicial reforms.

🧕 The Case of Sharmistha Panoli

• 📅 May 2025: Sharmistha Panoli, a law student, posted a video on Instagram criticizing Bollywood celebrities for their silence on terrorism.
• 🗣️ She was accused of hurting religious sentiments, particularly of the Muslim community.
• 🧹 Even after deleting the video and apologizing, she was arrested by Kolkata Police from Gurugram.
• 📜 She was charged with promoting religious hatred and sent to 14 days judicial custody.
• ❌ The High Court denied her bail, stating:
  
  “Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can hurt others’ feelings.”
  

🎓 The Case of Khadija Shaikh

• 📅 May 2025: Khadija Shaikh, an engineering student from Pune, posted “Pakistan Zindabad” (Long live Pakistan) on her social media.
• 🚔 She was arrested and suspended from college.
• ⚖️ But within a few days, the Bombay High Court ordered her release, citing her upcoming exams.
• 👩‍⚖️ The judge said:
  
  “She deleted the post and apologized — should her life be ruined for this?”
  

🔍 What’s the Problem Here?

1. Religious Sensitivity – Selective Outrage

• If someone hurts Muslim sentiments, action is swift and strict.
• But if someone posts anti-national slogans that hurt patriotic or Hindu sentiments, they’re given relief in the name of education.

2. Rights Only for a Few?

• Khadija gets protection under Right to Education (Article 21).
• But Sharmistha, a law student, is denied the benefit of Freedom of Speech (Article 19).

3. Politics in the Courtroom?

• Sharmistha was arrested in West Bengal, where the ruling party is often accused of vote-bank appeasement.
• Khadija’s case had no visible political pressure — and hence, she got lenient treatment.

4. A Threat to Constitutional Equality

The Constitution promises:

• Article 14 – Right to Equality
• Article 19 – Freedom of Speech
• Article 21 – Right to Life and Education

But are these rights applied equally? Or does the court ask: “Who said it?” before asking “What was said?”

⚠️ A Growing Pattern of Double Standards

Sadly, these aren’t isolated cases:

• Amulya Leona shouted “Pakistan Zindabad” in 2020 during CAA protests and got bail under free speech.
• Mohammed Zubair (Alt News co-founder) has made many posts mocking Hinduism, yet gets legal sympathy and bail.
• But when a Hindu student criticizes silence on terrorism, she gets arrested and denied bail.

➡️ This selective justice isn’t just unfair — it’s dangerous for a democracy.

🏛️ What About Judicial Reforms?

In 2014, the Central Government tried to reform the way judges are appointed by passing the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act.
The goal was to make the system more transparent and accountable.

But in 2015, the Supreme Court struck it down, saying it violated judicial independence.

Still, many experts and citizens believe we need to bring back this conversation — because unchecked bias in the judiciary is not acceptable.

✅ Justice Must Be Equal — Not Selective

Whether it’s Sharmistha or Khadija, both were students who posted something controversial.

Justice should depend on the content, not the identity.

If people begin to feel:

• “I’ll be punished not because of what I said, but because of who I am,”
  then freedom dies and fear begins.

And that’s why we need judicial reforms — not outside the Constitution, but from within it.

Because without equal justice, we don’t just lose trust in courts —
we lose faith in democracy.

Written By : Shubham Shinde (@baajind)

Original Post : https://www.instagram.com/p/DKjTPbvo2j-/?img_index=1