Journalist Abhisar Sharma.
Credit: X/@abhisar_sharma
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to consider a challenge by Youtuber journalist Abhisar Sharma to the validity of an FIR lodged by Assam police over his criticism of the state government on allotment of 3,000 bighas of land to a private company.
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh, however, granted him interim protection from arrest for a period of four weeks to enable him to approach the Gauhati High Court.
The court tagged his plea challenging validity of sedition provision under Section 152 of the BNS for considering along with an already pending petition.
It also issued notice to the Union government on his plea on challenge to Section 152 BNS.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, submitted Section 152 BNS was being used as omnibus provision.
The court, however, asked him to challenge the FIR before the high court.
"Why are you bypassing the high court? We will give you protection you go to the high court. Just because you’re a journalist, we can't entertain," the bench said.
There should be some uniformity as the court had earlier granted protection to other journalists, he said, alluding to the cases of Siddharth Varadarajan and Karan Thapar.
Sibal feared the police may lodge another FIR.
On this, the bench said, "Even if we entertain, they can still lodge another FIR."
Sibal then said, "Society looks up to this court. Please don’t do this. Please. This is not done. What message are we sending?"
The court, however, said it was not inclined to lodge the FIR.
On August 18, 2025, the petitioner stated he posted a video on his YouTube channel titled “When the judge reprimanded the BJP government! Why thousands bigha land to Adani?” He said he questioned the wisdom of allotting 3,000 bighas of tribal land to a private entity viz. Mahabal Cements, and exposed government decisions that affect tribal land rights, environmental concerns, and democratic accountability.
On August 21, 2025, the FIR was registered at PS Crime Branch, District Guwahati under Sections 152, 196 and 197 BNS, 2023, against the petitioner on the basis of a private complaint against the YouTube video.
His plea claimed he merely exercised his fundamental right to freedom of speech and press by reporting and critically commenting on political speeches already in the public domain.
"The present FIR, taken at face value, discloses no offence and is a clear misuse of criminal law to target journalistic expression. The invocation of Section 152 BNS exemplifies the unconstitutional breadth and vagueness of the provision, making it ripe for judicial scrutiny," his plea claimed.
It contended, unless this court intervened, the petitioner’s liberty and the freedom of the press, both of which are part of the basic structure of the Constitution, will suffer irreparable harm.