Courts unshackle chains of sedition

Granted Bail Image Courtesy:newindianexpress.com

On August 3, in two different cases, two High Courts granted bail to persons booked for sedition while upholding their fundamental rights. The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to a farmer named Dalbir, while Gujarat HCt granted bail to Pathalgadi movement leader Babita Sukar Kashyap.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Two FIRs were filed against Dalbir and he was booked for sedition and some hate speech related offences under the Indian Penal Code. Both the FIRs stated that Dalbir had given speech with objectionable contents about the Haryana Chief Minister which could have resulted in caste based division creating a threat to the peace and harmony.

The State objected to the bail stating that Dalbir was arrested with great difficulty, and could abscond. While the petitioner’s counsel argued that it was a false implication and he was merely exercising his right to protest and criticise the functioning of the State.

The court refused to consider the merits of the allegations in detail since it was an application for regular bail. The court did observe that “freedom of speech is a fundamental right and makes a foundation for a strong democracy”. The court stated that the nature of contents of the speeches would be subject matter of trial as to whether it was lawful protest.

The court pointed out that investigation being complete, the conclusion of trial would take time and on mere apprehension that bail will be misused, it would not be appropriate to deny the petitioner his personal liberty. The court, thus granted bail to Dalbir subject to furnishing surety/bail bonds to the tune of Rs. 2 Lakhs each in both the FIRs.

The complete order may be read here:

In another case, on July 22, the Sirsa Sessions Court granted bail to five farmers who were booked for sedition as well as attempt to murder. The allegation was that the five applicants who were protesting a training camp by BJP workers being held at Choudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa, were amongst a group of people who intercepted the vehicle of Ranbir Singh Gangwa, Deputy Speaker, Haryana Government. It was alleged that the protesters raised slogans against the government and attacked the vehicle with ‘Dandas’ of their flag and stones and this incident was also captured on video.

The counsel for the applicants argued that sedition is not attracted in the present case as there is nothing on record that said the incident could have led to overthrow of the State Government, and argued that section 124A of IPC was invoked to increase the gravity of the alleged offence. He further contended that protest and general public opinion against the working of State Government and state machinery does not attract Section 124-A IPC in any manner.

The court agreed with this contention that offence of sedition is doubtful in this case and that at most, section 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) of IPC is attracted. The court decided to grant bail to the applicant on furnishing their personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety in the like amount each.

The July 27 order may be read here:

Gujarat High Court

Babita Sukar Kashyap was seeking regular bail in the sedition case against her. The FIR stated that the police received intelligence that Babita was involved in instigating the followers of Gujarat’s Sati-Pati cult to resort to violent means in the pursuit of their objectives. It further states that Babita and other accused are instigating the followers of Sati-Pati Cult by wrong interpretation of 5th Schedule of the Constitution of India and Panchayats (Extension of Schedule Areas) Act, 1996.

“She is instigating the tribal populace by claiming that by virtue of provisions of Panchayat (Extension of Scheduled Area) and 5th Scheduled of the Constitution, no representative of State or Union Government can enter the village inhibited by tribal, and the laws of Union and State have no applicability in these tribal villages,” alleged the FIR. It was further stated that material seized from her states that the Adivasi Communities need to adopt a path of struggle to counter the open challenges made by the powerful elite communities of depriving the Adivasis of their existential freedom.

“The material obtained from them have stated that the system of pathalgadi by erecting stones are aimed at preventing non-Adivasis from entering the land of the Adivasis and residing there. It also extols the readers to spread the Pathalgadi movement in all village and areas as the primary weapon in the class struggle. They have asked that the movement based on the pathalgadi system to be made into a pan India Adivasi Movement,” states the FIR.

Babita was arrested in July 2020 based on this FIR, and a chargesheet was filed in October 2020. Her counsel argued that the FIR was registered against her due to her antecedent in Jharkhand. However, so far as the similar offences registered against her in Jharkhand is concerned, the Government of Jharkhand has ordered to withdraw all cases which are registered against her in connection with Pathalgadi Movement. He submitted that to constitute an offence under Section 124(A) of the IPC, there must be actual violation of incitement to violence associated with the words and therefore, mere involvement in the movement of Pattalgadi Movement cannot amount to commission of offence.

The State objected to the bail stating that the applicant is provoking tribal community against the Government as well as declares that no Indian laws shall apply to districts/regions of Adivasi areas, and further that no government officers can enter into the Adivasi locality, and provokes the tribal to assault government officers if they enter the tribal regions.

The court took into consideration the fact that she has been in custody since July 2020 and that she has taken legal recourse for her cause seeking directions from the Supreme Court that the government be directed to function as per advice of the Tribes Advisory Council for schedule areas and tribe areas as per provisions of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.

The court also noted that no actual violence or breach of peace occurred during her presence in Gujarat, and that witness statements do not indicate that any overt act was incited from the public due to her actions. The court observed that the State could not point out a single event to show that any disturbance whatsoever was caused or has been caused or the public in general was affected in their normal activities on account of her Pathalgadi Movement as alleged in the FIR.

The court allowed the bail application while noting that the applicant has deep roots in society and no apprehension as to flee away or escape trial or tampering with the evidence /witnesses is expressed. The bail was thus granted and the applicant was ordered to be released on executing a bond of Rs.20,000.

The complete order may be read here:

Bail granted in both cases

Neither of the High Courts delved into the merits of the case. While the Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out the fundamental right to freedom of speech, Gujarat High Court made an observation directly correlated to the actions of the applicant. The court made the important observation that no violence had actually taken place and even took into consideration witness statements to ensure itself that no violence was incited due to her words/actions.

Last week, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition challenging the validity of section 124A of the IPC which deals with the offence of sedition. The bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha and Justice Arun Pillai stated that the court did not have the power to go beyond the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar 1962 AIR 955 whereby a a 5-judge constitution bench had upheld the validity of section 124A of IPC.

The validity of sedition as an offence under IPC is under consideration before the Supreme Court bench led by CJI NV Ramana. He made an oral observation that sedition was a colonial law and that the continuation of such laws after Independence was unfortunate.