A dramatic twist has emerged in the controversial arrest of social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli, as Kolkata Police has now filed a case against Wajahat Khan, the very person whose complaint led to her detention. The tables have turned in this complex saga of alleged hate speech and religious sentiments, with Khan now facing multiple allegations of making derogatory remarks against Hindu deities and traditions across his social media platforms. The 23-year-old law student Panoli was arrested on May 30, 2025, in Gurugram for a video criticizing Muslim Bollywood celebrities’ silence on “Operation Sindoor,” which authorities deemed as hate speech. However, the spotlight has shifted to Khan, who has reportedly
been missing since Sunday night, according to his father Saadat Khan. This case has ignited a fierce debate about freedom of expression versus hate speech, drawing political reactions and raising questions about selective enforcement of laws governing religious sentiments in India’s increasingly polarized social media landscape.
Table of Contents
The Initial Arrest That Sparked Controversy
The arrest of Sharmistha Panoli sent shockwaves through social media circles and political corridors alike. The young law student and social media influencer was detained by Kolkata Police in Gurugram late on May 30, following a complaint filed by Wajahat Khan through the Rashidi Foundation in Kolkata. Panoli’s controversial video, which used what authorities described as communal and abusive language while criticizing Muslim Bollywood celebrities for their silence on “Operation Sindoor,” had already been deleted by the time of her arrest. She had also issued a public apology, acknowledging the inappropriate nature of her comments.
The swift action by Kolkata Police, resulting in Panoli being placed in 14-day judicial custody, triggered immediate political backlash. Several BJP leaders called for her release, arguing that her arrest was an overreach and an attack on freedom of expression. In response, Kolkata Police issued a strongly-worded statement defending their actions, emphasizing that hate speech and abusive language should not be conflated with legitimate freedom of expression. This stance set the stage for what would become a much larger controversy involving the complainant himself.
Wajahat Khan’s Disappearance and Family’s Claims
The case took an unexpected turn when Wajahat Khan, identified as the co-founder of the Rashidi Foundation that lodged the complaint against Panoli, reportedly went missing. His father, Saadat Khan, told media outlets including Aaj Tak that his son had not been seen since Sunday night, adding a layer of mystery to an already complex situation. The family claims they have been receiving threatenin
g phone calls following Panoli’s arrest, creating an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty.
Saadat Khan vehemently defended his son, describing him as “innocent and secular” who would never insult Hinduism. When confronted with evidence of his son’s alleged derogatory posts about Hindu festivals and deities, the elder Khan suggested that Wajahat’s social media accounts may have been hacked. This claim, however, has been met with skepticism by many who point to the systematic nature and timeline of the posts in question. The family’s distress is palpable, caught between defending their son’s reputation and dealing with his sudden disappearance amid mounting legal troubles.
Allegations Against Khan and Social Media Evidence
The investigation into Wajahat Khan’s social media activity has revealed a pattern of posts that many consider inflammatory and offensive to Hindu sentiments. Screenshots and videos circulating online show posts allegedly made by Khan that mock Hindu festivals, make derogatory comments about Hindu deities, and ridicule temple traditions. These posts, which span several months, have become the basis for multiple complaints filed against him in cities including Guwahati and Delhi.
What makes Khan’s case particularly ironic is that he had publicly demanded and later celebrated Panoli’s arrest for hate speech, while allegedly engaging in similar behavior himself. The Shree Ram Swabhiman Parishad and other Hindu organizations have filed formal complaints against Khan, invoking multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita—196(1)(a), 299, 352, 353(1)(c)—along with provisions of the Information Technology Act (Sections 66A and 67). These complaints accuse him of promoting enmity between religious communities and inciting public disorder, charges similar to those that led to Panoli’s arrest.
Legal Implications and Freedom of Expression Debate
This case has reignited the crucial debate about the boundaries of freedom of expression in India’s digital age. Legal experts point out that both Panoli and Khan’s cases highlight the challenges in defining and prosecuting hate speech while protecting legitimate criticism and expression. The selective outrage and support along political and religious lines have further complicated the discourse, with
each side accusing the other of hypocrisy.
The invocation of various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act in both cases demonstrates the legal system’s attempt to address online hate speech. However, critics argue that these laws are often applied inconsistently, influenced by political pressure and public sentiment rather than objective legal standards. The fact that Khan, who initiated legal action against Panoli for hate speech, now faces similar charges himself, underscores the complex nature of regulating speech in a diverse, multi-religious society.
Political Reactions and Social Media Response
The political response to this controversy has been predictably divided along party lines. While BJP leaders rallied behind Panoli, calling her arrest an attack on Hindu voices, opposition parties have remained largely silent on Khan’s case. This selective support has led to accusations of political opportunism from both sides, with social media becoming a battleground
for competing narratives about religious freedom and hate speech.
Social media users have been particularly active in this case, with hashtags supporting both Panoli and demanding action against Khan trending simultaneously. The digital divide reflects the broader societal polarization, with each community viewing the case through the lens of their own experiences and grievances. The viral nature of the controversy has also raised questions about the role of social media platforms in moderating content and preventing the spread of hate speech while preserving free expression.
FAQs
Q: What led to Kolkata Police filing a case against Wajahat Khan?
A: Kolkata Police filed a case against Wajahat Khan after multiple complaints emerged showing his alleged social media posts containing derogatory remarks against Hindu deities, festivals, and traditions. Screenshots and videos from his accounts revealed content that many believed incited communal tensions and mocked Hindu practices. Ironically, Khan was
the person who had filed the original complaint leading to social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli’s arrest for hate speech. Organizations including the Shree Ram Swabhiman Parishad filed formal complaints against Khan under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Information Technology Act.
Q: Why is Wajahat Khan missing and what is his family’s response?
A: Wajahat Khan has reportedly been missing since Sunday night, according to his father Saadat Khan. The family claims they have been receiving threatening phone calls since Sharmistha Panoli’s arrest, creating a climate of fear. Saadat Khan has defended his son, calling him “innocent and secular” and suggesting that his social media accounts may have been hacked when confronted with evidence of anti-Hindu posts. The timing of Khan’s disappearance, coinciding with mounting legal troubles and public scrutiny, has added another layer of complexity to this controversial case.
