"Bright Student" Can’t Escape FIR for Anti-Sindoor Post Says Court
Court refuses to quash case despite student's apology, grades.
The Bombay High Court has firmly stated that a 19-year-old Pune college student’s academic excellence and subsequent apology are insufficient grounds to dismiss a First Information Report (FIR) filed against her for a controversial social media post criticizing Operation Sindoor. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, made the oral observation while hearing the student’s plea to quash the FIR.
The student, arrested in May for reposting content on Instagram from an account named ‘Reformistan’ that accused the Indian government of instigating war with Pakistan, was later released on bail. The post, shared amid heightened Indo-Pak tensions during Operation Sindoor, was deleted within two hours after the student faced a flood of online threats. Her advocate argued that she had no malicious intent, promptly removed the post, and issued an apology. Additionally, the lawyer highlighted her academic success, noting that she performed exceptionally in her exams post-bail.
However, the court was unmoved, stating that being a “bright student” who “passed with flying colours” does not justify quashing the FIR. The bench further noted that deleting the post might actually complicate the case, suggesting it could be perceived as an attempt to evade accountability rather than resolve the issue. “Deletion of the post, in fact, aggravates and complicates the case,” the court remarked.
Also Read: Second Bomb Threat Email This Week Targets Bombay HC and Turns Out to Be Hoax
Operation Sindoor, launched on May 7, 2025, was India’s military response to the devastating April 22 Pahalgam attack, targeting and dismantling terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The operation concluded on May 10, marking a brief but intense period of hostilities.
The court has directed public prosecutor Mankhuwar Deshmukh to submit the case diary and adjourned the matter for further hearing in two weeks. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s stance that neither academic achievements nor post-deletion apologies automatically warrant leniency in cases involving sensitive national security issues.
