In a shocking incident, Calcutta High Court advocate Surabhi Datta has sparked intense outrage after openly threatening to slit the throat of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a social media post.
Sharing a post by the leftist ‘journalist’ Faye D’Souza on her Instagram story regarding the Delhi Police’s detention of lawyers who were protesting against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged electoral roll irregularities and Form 6 registrations during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, Datta expressed extreme hostility.
This lawyer on Instagram is threatening to slit throat of PM Modi Her name is Surabhi datta Pls take this into cognizance @DelhiPolice https://t.co/HUBCs5G3sk
— Achyuta🥷 (@Adhivarasen) October 17, 2026
Referring to the Prime Minister as a ‘chaiwala’, she wrote, “I really hope somebody slits the throat of that chaiwala”. She further escalated her violent rhetoric by adding, “I literally wanted to see him and his whole department exiled or killed”.
According to her LinkedIn profile, Surabhi Datta is currently a practising advocate at the Calcutta High Court. Her comments have raised serious concerns, especially coming from a legal professional who is fully aware of the laws governing incitement to violence and public order.
After being called out on a LinkedIn post, Surabhi cried foul and alleged that the screenshot was generated using AI.
“Wow. Never knew Al could make people believe something which is not even authentic. These pictures have been forged to defame me. Just because I criticise the present government doesn’t mean you could make up something so disappointing against me”, she claimed in the comment section of the post.
The controversy brings up a crucial question about the boundaries of expression: does freedom of speech give citizens the liberty to issue direct death threats to anyone, including the head of the nation? The incident has led many to argue whether the country is grappling with an abuse of constitutional liberty, where basic legal decorum is pushed aside under the guise of political protest.
While criticism and political disagreement are essential parts of a healthy democracy, issuing open death threats crosses every acceptable boundary. Opposing the policies or decisions of the ruling government is a constitutional right, but explicitly wishing for or calling for the murder of the Prime Minister cannot be brushed off as mere political opinion.
There is a fundamental difference between expressing political dissent and issuing explicit calls for violence, and no political grievance can justify public threats against human life.
Disclaimer: The report was updated on Sunday (18th October) to include the statement of Calcutta High Court advocate Surabhi Datta.
