The Supreme Court on Thursday, August 28, 2025, addressed the case of journalist and YouTuber Abhisar Sharma, who is facing a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the Assam Police. While the court declined to quash the FIR, it granted Sharma a four-week period of interim protection from arrest.

The case stems from a YouTube video in which Sharma allegedly criticized the Assam government. The complaint against Sharma alleges that he mocked the government, ridiculed the concept of "Ram Rajya," and made statements that could potentially harm national unity. The FIR invokes several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 152 for endangering the sovereignty of the nation, Section 196 for promoting enmity between groups, and Section 197 for making statements prejudicial to national integration.

In the video, Sharma is accused of criticizing the Assam government for allotting 3,000 bighas of tribal land to a private company. He also claimed that the Assam government had allotted 9,000 bighas of land to the Adani Group and accused Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of favoring the group and prioritizing communal politics. The complaint was filed by Alok Baruah, who alleged that Sharma's remarks could provoke communal sentiments and create distrust against the state government.

During the court hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Sharma, sought the quashing of the FIR, arguing that society looks to the court for protection. He also raised concerns about the potential for multiple FIRs to be lodged against his client. However, the bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh was not persuaded to quash the FIR. The court suggested that Sharma approach the Gauhati High Court for relief. Despite refusing to quash the FIR, the Supreme Court granted Sharma four weeks of protection from arrest to allow him time to appeal to the High Court. The court also issued a notice to the Central government, seeking its response to Sharma's plea challenging certain legal provisions related to seditious offenses.

Sharma contended that his statements were factual, based on public speeches made by the Assam Chief Minister, and did not incite violence or disorder. His petition argued that the FIR represents a misuse of sedition-like provisions aimed at silencing dissent and that criticizing government policies falls within the bounds of free speech.

The Supreme Court is already hearing petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 152 of the BNS and Sharma's case has been tagged with this ongoing challenge.