A Delhi court has said that the sedition law cannot be invoked to quell unrest under the pretext of gagging the wrongdoers.
Additional sessions judge Dharmender Rana made the observation by granting bail to two individuals, Devi Lal Burdak and Swaroop Ram, arrested by Delhi police earlier this month for allegedly committing sedition and spreading rumors by posting fake videos on Facebook. during the ongoing farmers’ protest.
The court also said that the invocation of Section 124 A (sedition) of the IPC is a “seriously debatable issue” in the case before it.
The court said that the sedition law was a powerful tool in the hands of the state to maintain peace and order in society. “However, it cannot be invoked to assuage unrest under the pretext of gagging the wrongdoers. Obviously, the law proscribes any act that tends to create disorder or disturbance of public order through the use of violence ”.
“In the absence of any exhortation, call, incitement or instigation to create disorder or alteration of the public peace by resorting to violence or any allusion or indirect observation or even any indication towards this objective, attributable to the accused, I suspect that Article 124 A (sedition) IPC can be validly invoked against the applicant, ”said the judge on February 15.
The judge said: “In my considered opinion, in a simple reading of the motto attributed to the defendant, the invocation of Section 124 A IPC is a seriously debatable subject.”
According to the police, Burdak had posted a fake video on his Facebook page with the slogan “There is a rebellion in the Delhi police and around 200 police officers have resigned en masse.”
However, the posted video was related to an incident where some people in Khaki (National Guard personnel) were agitating regarding their complaints to the Jharkhand government, the prosecution said.
In his Facebook post, Ram had shared a separate video with a similar tagline.
However, the posted video was related to an incident in which a senior Delhi police officer was briefing police personnel at the protest site and also encouraging them to address the situation properly, the prosecution said.
Regarding the video posted by Ram, the judge said: “I personally have seen the video in the courtroom in which evidently a senior officer of the Delhi police is raising slogans, in a very agitated tone, and it looks like a group of Delhi police personnel. ” standing next to him. “
“The background voices also suggest a very charged atmosphere. The investigator informed him that the accused was not the author of said email and had simply forwarded it, “he said.
The court granted bail to the two defendants with bail of Rs 50,000 each and two bail of the same amount each, noting that the police were no longer seeking their interrogation in custody.
The court ordered them to join the additional investigation when requested by the investigating officer and to appear scrupulously at each and every stage of the proceedings before the court in question so as not to cause any obstruction or delay in its progress and not to commit a crime similar to the crime of which they are accused.
Regarding the allegation of forgery, the court observed that the prosecution did not indicate the creation of any false documents in the present case.
“I do not understand how the crime of forgery is attracted in the present case unless someone creates some false document, as legally defined in section 464 (forgery) of the IPC,” said the judge.
Regarding the allegation of the spread of rumors, the judge said that “the allegations against the accused for the commission of the offense punishable under Section 505 of the IPC seem to have force but that is a bail offense.”
The defendants had claimed that they were falsely involved in the present case.
They added that the material alleged against him was innocuous in nature and was in fact an expression of emotions expressed in disagreement with government policy.
The police opposed their requests for bail, saying that very serious allegations were brought against the defendants and that they not only made a sensational post on Facebook with the intention of spreading discontent against the state, but also committed forgery.
.
She is a freelance blogger, writer, and speaker, and writes for various entertainment magazines.