Bombay high court quashes FIR against Pune student over ‘Operation Sindoor’ post

The court observed that “youthful error of judgment cannot automatically be equated with a deliberate criminal act”.

The Bombay high court on Tuesday quashed the First Information Report (FIR) against a 20-year-old engineering student arrested in May 2025 for re-posting controversial posts on social media during ‘Operation Sindoor’. This was the counter-terror strike on Pakistan following the Pahalgam terror attack. The court observed that “youthful error of judgment cannot automatically be equated with a deliberate criminal act” in the absence of material establishing the ingredients of the alleged offences.

In her petition, the student said she had only re-posted a message on Instagram. (HT File Photo/ Representational)

A single-judge bench of Justice Milind Jadhav noted the absence of any identified consequential incident, prompt deletion of the post, apology tendered by student and the absence of specific material establishing the statutory ingredients. The judge said it reinforces that the prosecution “lacks a sufficient factual foundation”.

Post questioned Pakistan's involvement in Pahalgam attack

After reposting certain posts on Operation Sindoor, the Pune-based student’s message said, “Pakistan Zindabad”. Represented by advocate Farhana Shah, the student challenged the college’s decision to rusticate her, calling it “arbitrary and unlawful”. She was subsequently arrested, remanded to judicial custody, and denied bail by a Pune magistrate. The Bombay High Court later granted her bail on May 25, 2025.

In her petition, the student said she had only re-posted a message on Instagram. The post had criticised the Indian government for escalating tension between two nuclear states and claimed there was no evidence to show Pakistan’s involvement in the attack on Indian tourists in Pahalgam in April 2025.

Additional public prosecutor Amit Palkar submitted that the content re-posted was capable of hurting religious sentiments.

The court, however, observed that while posts relating to religion and religious sentiments require to be considered with sensitivity and responsibility, there were no grounds to establish the student’s act as “prejudicial to national integration” or “outrage religious feelings”.

“Applicant has already suffered custody. That, in itself, for a young student is a scar, which cannot be erased easily,” the court observed.