Bombay HC's strong condemnation: If a student shares, does the state have to respond in handcuffs?

In a free speech and civil liberty-proud democracy, the recent observation by the Bombay High Court should act as a reality check: dissent or senseless social media utterance by young people cannot and ought not be responded to with a sledgehammer of criminal justice.

The case in question? A 19-year-old Information Technology student in Pune reposts a highly problematic message criticizing India's actions during Operation Sindoor. Hours later, she deletes it, offers a public apology—yet, finds herself having to contend with not only campus rustication but criminal prosecution. Arrested. Confined in Yerwada prison. Refused bail.

"Do you want to make the student a criminal?" the Bombay High Court posed, in what must rank as one of the most scathing judicial rebukes of the year. And deservedly so.

The state's response, as explained by Justices Gauri Godse and Somasekhar Sundaresan, was not merely radical—it was reactionary. The student was deprived of her academic future, dignity, and inherent right to reform, all over an Instagram repost that was deleted within two hours. Her intent, rightfully bereft of malice, was overwhelmed by a public outcry and political nerves that were pulled taut.

And then there’s the role of the college—Sinhgad Academy of Engineering. Rusticating a student without even a hearing? Is that the kind of disciplinary justice we’re teaching in our classrooms?

The court saw through the performative patriotism. “National interest would not suffer because of a post uploaded by a student who has realised her mistake,” it observed with sharp clarity.

If India has to be a democracy for the young, then this moment—this judicial moment of courage—has to be a moment of turning. Because if we begin criminalizing youthful errors as sedition or subversion, we're not safeguarding the country. We're just suffocating its future.