From Curiosity to Custody
- Sakshi Mishra
- Feb 4
- 7 min read
In a year anticipated to mark a significant point for Indian democracy, a troubling legal contrast has emerged. On one side, the government offers a gentle approach to "spiritual" child influencers; conversely, it adopts a harsh stance towards young individuals who dare to think independently. The situation involving Ashwamit Gautam, a 14-year-old Dalit adolescent, has ignited a nationwide discussion about whether the Indian Constitution safeguards the "Right to Question" or simply the "Right to Conform." In an incident that has sparked a nationwide discussion regarding constitutional rights, the safeguarding of minors, and freedom of speech, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed on January 15, 2026, against 14-year-old social media influencer Ashwamit Gautam in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Gautam, who has gained substantial popularity on Instagram for his insights on economic concerns like unemployment, inflation, and governmental policies, was briefly apprehended under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows for preventive detention to uphold public safety, after a video fragment was manipulated and shared on social media with what was claimed to be a misleading portrayal. This video led to a complaint stating that his material "offended religious sentiments," resulting in the FIR being lodged under Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Ashwamit Gautam’s description of the situation that led to a First Information Report (FIR) against him highlights a distressing reality: how a minor’s online expression can swiftly escalate into a matter of legal action. In a post he made on Instagram on January 19, Ashwamit characterised the police response not as a neutral or preventative step, but rather as an effort to quell his dissent regarding governance and public policy. The legal framework in India is presently displaying a striking and alarming discrepancy that undermines the core principle of constitutional equality. The case against Ashwamit Gautam, a 14-year-old Dalit student from Lucknow, highlights this troubling trend. Despite his youth, Ashwamit's insightful analysis of social and political matters such as inflation and unemployment attracted 1.6 million followers, but it also led to the filing of an FIR against him under Sections 153A and 505 of the IPC. Legal experts deem it a "legal absurdity" for a minor's quest for knowledge to be labelled as "promoting enmity" or "public mischief," thereby ignoring the rehabilitative intentions of the Juvenile Justice Act in favour of criminal prosecution. This sharply contrasts
with the case of Abhinav Arora, an 11-year-old "spiritual speaker" who claims to be friends with Lord Krishna. While Ashwamit faces scrutiny for referencing statistics and the Constitution, Abhinav is honoured with praises from officials like Nitin Gadkari, even though he has faced criticism from spiritual leaders such as Swami Rambhadracharya for his perceived lack of discipline. This indicates a government preference for performative spirituality rather than analytical reasoning. This duplicity extends beyond young individuals and reaches the upper echelons of the judiciary, as evidenced by the different outcomes of Umar Khalid and Asaram Bapu. As of early 2026, Umar Khalid, a PhD student, has been held without trial for more than five years under the rigid UAPA, as his "academic opposition" is perceived as a danger to national unity. In contrast, Asaram Bapu, a convicted rapist serving a life sentence, has received numerous interim bail and medical leave throughout 2025 and 2026. This legal inconsistency, where an innocent scholar is refused freedom while a guilty criminal is given "relief," delivers a distressing message to the nation's youth. By considering Fundamental Rights to be discretionary for critical thinkers yet absolute for those who conform, the state risks instilling "fear as a teaching method." When curiosity is seen as a risk and inquiry leads to detention, the national education system shifts from being a hub of innovation to a mechanism for compliance, ultimately hindering the intellectual development and "Innovation and Inquiry" metrics of the country.
He recounted that a manipulated and misrepresented video of his material had circulated widely on social media, resulting in a complaint that led to police involvement. Although his detention was for a short period, Ashwamit conveyed that the ordeal inflicted considerable emotional turmoil, insomnia, and anxiety to the point that he required medication for relief. His brother, who was also taken into custody at the same time, was held for nearly a day and has subsequently faced regular reporting obligations to a magistrate for six months.Central to this issue is a crucial inquiry: what actions did Ashwamit Gautam actually take? Unlike typical criminal cases that involve physical injury, property destruction, or disturbances, the allegations against him arise solely from his digital speech. As of late January 2026, the entire, unedited version of the video that sparked the complaint has yet to be officially made public. There is no confirmed evidence that Ashwamit’s original post included any explicit incitement to violence, hatred, or illegal actions. The debate focuses on whether his comments, critical of government and public issues,s exceeded the legal boundaries of permissible expression. His opponents label his opinions as divisive and inflammatory, while his advocates maintain that his actions represent nothing more than constitutionally protected civic participation by a socially aware youth. The FIR is said to reference Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code, a rule that criminalises intentional and malicious actions
aimed at provoking religious sentiments. This clause was historically intended to tackle actions that are purposely designed to incite community animosity. Nonetheless, advocates for civil liberties and digital rights have consistently warned against its broad and sometimes arbitrary use, particularly in situations where the material in question is ambiguous, critical, or contentious rather than clearly hateful. In Ashwamit’s situation, critics of the law enforcement response contend that turning to Section 295 without solid proof of malicious intent illustrates an increasing trend to equate mere offence with criminal behaviour.Equally controversial is the reported invocation of Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which grants the police the authority to implement preventive detention to prevent a foreseen disturbance of public order. Though preventive measures can be warranted in exceptional scenarios, their application towards a youth with no previous instances of violence or public disruption raises significant concerns regarding proportionality and necessity. Legal experts emphasise that the powers of preventive detention should be applied sparingly and cautiously, particularly when less invasive alternatives like counselling, notification, or communication are accessible. When such powers are directed at minors, the potential for psychological distress and enduring stigmatisation becomes notably heightened.The constitutional ramifications of this case cannot be overlooked. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution safeguards the right to freedom of speech and expression, albeit with reasonable limitations outlined in Article 19(2). The challenge lies in ensuring these limitations remain genuinely “reasonable” and do not evolve into mere tools of convenience or repression. Detractors of the FIR argue that, in a constitutional democracy, especially regarding critiques of government policy, the preferred reaction should be corrective and conversational rather than punitive and criminal. The filing of FIRs related to speech issues, particularly those involving minors and non-violent expressions, poses the risk of inducing a chilling effect, discouraging young individuals from participation in public discourse altogether.Public response to the case has been sharply divided. On social media and various digital platforms, numerous users have expressed shock and anger over the criminalisation of a teenager’s viewpoints, drawing parallels with a widespread trend where activists, academics, and intellectuals have encountered lengthy legal struggles over contentious speech. Conversely, some defend the police's actions as essential for safeguarding public order and social equilibrium. However, a persistent theme in public discussions is the perceived inconsistency in enforcing criminal law: while challenging authority may lead to swift legal repercussions, significant offenders with political or religious clout often seem to manoeuvre through the legal system with relative ease.The Ashwamit Gautam case is indicative of a broader national trend that has consistently placed India's free speech laws under examination. Umar Khalid, a student activist, has been detained since September 13, 2020, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and related statutes in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots. Despite the lack of a concluded trial, his ongoing detention and frequent bail denials have drawn criticism from human rights organisations both domestically and internationally. In a similar vein, Sharjeel Imam, involved in the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests, was arrested on January 28, 2020, facing sedition and UAPA charges associated with his speeches, sparking a debate on whether political discourse is being conflated with criminal conspiracy.Another illustrative instance is that of Dr Kafeel Khan, who was taken into custody in December 2019 due to an address given at Aligarh Muslim University amidst demonstrations opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act. Held under the National Security Act, Khan was eventually freed, and in September 2020, the Allahabad High Court annulled significant components of the detention, highlighting that dissenting expressions, even if they are critical of the authorities, do not inherently pose a danger to public order. These instances collectively highlight how strict legal measures have been applied in relation to speech, leading to ongoing worries about coherence, proportionality, and the genuine interpretation of constitutional liberties in action.Apart from legal principles, the Ashwamit Gautam situation prompts deep philosophical and educational inquiries. Is it permissible for a child to voice critical opinions without being viewed as a danger to public order? Does the widespread misrepresentation of information warrant the application of criminal law? Are constitutional safeguards implemented equally, or are they selectively enforced based on the identity and influence of the speaker? Perhaps most crucially, what implications does such behaviour convey to the youth regarding the importance of curiosity, investigation, and independent thinking? Legal scholars stress that expression should not be equated with violence, and that in cases where harm is claimed, less severe responses such as civil defamation, clarification, counter-speech, or initiatives for media literacy should be prioritised, especially when dealing with minors. They contend that the criminal justice system is a blunt tool ill-equipped to navigate the intricacies of online discussions and adolescent expression.
The FIR directed at Ashwamit Gautam represents more than just an isolated legal incident; it reflects the delicate nature of constitutional tolerance for dissent in modern India. When a fourteen-year-old’s inquiries are responded to not with discussion but through coercive legal measures, the assurance of fundamental rights risks being diminished to a theoretical idea examined in academic texts, yet ambiguous in actual experiences. Democracies do not deteriorate solely through blatant authoritarianism; they weaken when curiosity is punished, when fear supersedes dialogue, and when the law is employed not as a defender of freedom, but as a means to silence. As this situation evolves, it forces the nation to confront a crucial question: Is India prepared to cultivate inquisitive minds, or only those expressions that conveniently remain uncritical?
Comments