Selective Enforcement And Digital Injustice: A Constitutional And Procedural Analysis Of The Sharmistha Panoli Case
- IJLLR Journal
- Jul 8
- 1 min read
Kanishka Garg, (CLAT 2025, Batch 2025–2030)
ABSTRACT
Legal theorists have warned, "The worst form of injustice is pretended justice," where legal procedures pretend to deliver justice, but in practice, it turns out to be selective in nature. Following the same trend, this paper studies how procedural loopholes and discriminatory enforcement result in injustice and violations of constitutional rights and provisions in the case of Sharmistha Panoli. It analyzes the procedural irregularities involved in her arrest, which contravened "Article 21 of the Indian Constitution", as well as the "guidelines of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar." It begins by questioning the actions of the Kolkata Police, which failed to serve a notice to Sharmistha under "Section 35(3)(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita," despite her cooperation and accessibility. It further exposes the failure of both law enforcement agencies and social media platforms in regulating hate speech content, particularly the threats against her through social media and phone calls. The last section of this paper presents a comparative study of this case with one involving Saayoni Ghosh in 2015, highlighting the selective enforcement, unequal application of the laws, and digital unaccountability. It concludes by compelling the law enforcement agencies to strictly adhere to procedures, ensuring equal enforcement of laws in addition to judicial reforms.
Keywords: Free Speech, BNS 2023, Procedural Law, Digital Hate Speech, Equality Before Law.
