Calcutta HC Judge Receives Death Threats on X After Denying Bail to Influencer Sharmishtha Panoli in Hate Speech Case
Calcutta HC Judge Receives Death Threats on X After Denying Bail to Influencer Sharmishtha Panoli in Hate Speech Case
Calcutta High Court Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee has been the target of serious online threats after he refused to grant interim bail to social media influencer Sharmishtha Panoli, who was arrested for allegedly promoting communal hatred through a controversial Instagram video. The threats, posted from several pseudonymous X (formerly Twitter) accounts, included direct calls for violence and attempts to dox the judge’s personal information, igniting widespread concern about the safety of judicial officers and the state of online hate speech regulation.
The threats came shortly after the judge rejected the initial bail plea of Panoli, a fourth-year law student from Symbiosis International University in Pune. Her arrest followed a video she posted online that allegedly hurt religious sentiments, especially after the Operation Sindoor campaign. Though the video has since been deleted, it led to a flurry of complaints and her eventual arrest from Gurgaon on May 30 based on an arrest warrant issued on May 22.
Posts on X targeting Justice Chatterjee included violent rhetoric, with one user saying the judge deserved to be attacked by “unknown gunmen” while another urged the public to “take care of him whenever spotted.” There were also attempts to identify and disclose his personal information, including sharing his previous academic history at Hooghly Mohsin College, photos of his courtroom, and biographical details sourced from public platforms like the National Green Tribunal website. These actions have raised serious alarm over the growing trend of online intimidation targeting the judiciary.
Many X users reported the abusive posts, tagging Kolkata Police and top officials including CP Manoj Verma and Joint CP (Crime) Rupesh Kumar. However, as of now, there has been no official comment from the police. Calcutta High Court’s registrar general Nabanita Ray confirmed that the matter will be looked into once the court resumes on June 9 after the summer vacation.
Interestingly, a vacation bench of the Calcutta High Court, led by Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, later granted interim bail to Panoli. The court observed that the arrest warrant issued against her was drafted in a “mechanical manner” and lacked critical details such as the grounds for her arrest, violating a Supreme Court directive that mandates transparency in arrest procedures. The court held that her continued judicial custody was unnecessary and granted her bail on a personal bond of Rs 10,000.
The court also instructed the student to surrender her passport at the Alipore court and cooperate with the ongoing investigation. It barred her from leaving the country without prior permission from the court, even for academic purposes. Her lawyer, D P Singh, informed the court that she had been in jail since May 30 and had upcoming examinations starting June 9.
The vacation bench further directed the police to provide the student with security, acknowledging her complaint about receiving threats. Justice Basu Chowdhury emphasized the role of police in lodging an FIR when a complaint is received and criticized the authorities for not acting on her prior security concerns. He added that the matter would now be handed over to a regular bench for continued proceedings.
Opposing the bail, Advocate General Kishore Datta pointed out that the student was not cooperating with the investigation and was not found at her residence when police tried to serve her a notice on May 18. However, her counsel contended that both she and her father had visited their local police station on May 15 and 17 to request security, reinforcing their willingness to engage with the authorities.
This case has sparked intense debate across social media platforms, legal circles, and among civil society about the threats faced by the judiciary, the process of lawful arrests, and the responsibilities of law enforcement in protecting both complainants and the accused. It also raises pressing questions about hate speech, freedom of expression, and the responsibilities of social media platforms in curbing abusive behavior.
For video news, visit our YouTube channel THE OLIGO.
