The Bombay High Court on 27 October 2026 set aside a criminal case lodged against a 20‑year‑old engineering student from a private college in Pune for reposting a contentious Instagram comment in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor. The student had been arrested on 9 May 2025.
High court emphasises youth, remorse and prior custody
A single‑judge bench led by Justice Milind Jadhav observed that the repost appeared to be an isolated act, that the student was not the author of the original content and that she had voluntarily deleted the repost and expressed remorse. The court noted the custodial detention the student had already endured and said such consequences leave an indelible impact on a young person.
“That in itself for a young student is a scar which cannot be erased easily,” Justice Milind Jadhav said.
The order stressed sensitivity when content pertains to religion and religious sentiments in a multi‑community society and acknowledged the potential of the reposted material to inflame passions. However, the bench found the applicant’s role limited to re‑posting existing material rather than creating it.
Court reasoning and practical details
- Role of the accused: bench recorded that she merely re‑posted content she did not author.
- Conduct after the repost: voluntary deletion of the post and expression of remorse were highlighted.
- Custody considered: prior arrest and time in custody influenced the court’s decision to quash the FIR.
The case arose during heightened India–Pakistan tensions after Operation Sindoor in May 2025, when authorities across India and Pakistan were sensitive to social‑media material that could exacerbate communal or cross‑border friction. The bench’s order balanced those concerns with the record of the accused’s conduct and her age.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 9 May 2025 | Student arrested in Pune over Instagram repost |
| 27 October 2026 | Bombay High Court quashes the criminal case |
The court underlined the need for discretion and sensitivity in handling offences touching on religious sentiments, while also signalling that isolated acts by youths, followed by remedial conduct, may merit a second chance. The order records facts as presented to the bench and attributes the legal findings to the High Court’s judgment.
