The Bombay High Court, led by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, observed on Friday that an FIR filed against a 19-year-old Pune student over a social media post made during Operation Sindoor could not be dismissed simply because she had apologised and performed well academically.
The judges noted that deleting the post and issuing an apology did not amount to sufficient grounds for quashing the case. They explained that such factors could be taken into account while granting bail—which the student had already received from the high court in May—but not for cancelling the FIR altogether.
The observations came while a bench of Chief Justice Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad was hearing the student’s plea requesting that the FIR registered by Pune Police be set aside, the Indian Express reported.
The Sinhgad Academy of Engineering in Pune expelled the second-year IT student on May 9 after police registered an FIR against her at Kondhwa police station. According to Pune Police, she had shared an Instagram post on May 7 about the war between Bharat and Pakistan, which allegedly created tension between two different religions and was likely to adversely affect public peace.
On May 27, a vacation bench of the Bombay High Court led by Justice Gauri V. Godse criticised both the state authorities and the college for what it described as “absolutely shocking” actions in arresting and rusticating her. The court ordered her release and said the authorities appeared intent on “ruining her life,” noting that she had already deleted the post and expressed regret.
The student later argued that she had only re-posted content without any malicious intent and had removed it soon after. In June, another bench of the high court overturned the rustication order, stating that it violated the principles of natural justice as she had not been given a chance to present her case.
On Friday, Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar reiterated that while her status as a student could be considered when granting bail, the FIR could not be quashed. When her lawyer pointed out that she had performed well in her exams, the bench acknowledged she might be a “bright child” but maintained that academic performance was not a ground to set aside the case.
The defence further argued there was no mens rea (criminal intent) since she had only re-posted someone else’s content and later deleted it. The bench, however, remarked that criminal intent was not the deciding factor here and suggested that deleting the post might actually complicate matters.
The court asked Public Prosecutor Mankunwar Deshmukh to submit the case diary in a sealed cover and scheduled the matter for final hearing in two weeks.