Aisha Sultana’s statement amounts to sedition, HC told

The allegation by Aisha Sultana, filmmaker, that the Union authorities had used COVID-19 as a bio-weapon towards the individuals of Lakshadweep prima facie amounts to an assertion prejudicial to nationwide integration, in accordance to a statement filed by the Lakshadweep administration within the Kerala High Court in response to Ms. Sultana’s anticipatory bail petition in a sedition case.

The statement filed by S. Manu, counsel for the administration and the Kavaratti police, identified that the assertion by the petitioner throughout a channel dialogue might be prima facie thought of as an try to incite disaffection among the many individuals in direction of the Union authorities.

It had the tendency to create dysfunction or disturbance of public peace by resorting to violence. Hence against the law had been registered for the offences below Sections 124 A (sedition) and 153 B (assertions towards nationwide integration) of Indian Penal Code. It was the responsibility of the police to register against the law once they had data on fee of cognizable offences.

‘Exemptions not applicable’

Prima facie she shouldn’t be entitled to the exemptions below Section 124A. “Criticising a government or its policies is much different from making totally baseless, ill-motivated and noxious assertions capable of exciting feelings of disaffection, hatred, and contempt against a government established by law,” the statement contended.

As for her the submission that she had apologised for her statements, the administration and the police contended that “the apologies or explanations made with the intention to avoid legal consequences will not absolve the criminal liability for the offences already completed.”

Her protest towards the usual working process (SOP) issued by the Disaster Management Authority of Lakshadweep was not a justification for making unfounded assertions towards the Union authorities. In reality, the petitioner’s allegation towards revised SOP concerning COVID administration was with out deserves as a Division Bench had already rejected all of the challenges towards the revised SOP.

The statement additionally added that there was no requirement of any imminent violence to maintain a cost below Section 124 A. Besides, the Supreme Court had not held part 124 A as unconstitutional. The judgment of the Supreme Court had defined the applicability of the penal provision and circumstances which could justify its invocation.

‘Interrogation unavoidable’

The circumstances had been being determined relying upon the factual facets in every case. The Supreme Court had made it clear {that a} slight distinction within the factual backdrop of two circumstances might end in a sea change within the applicability of the regulation.

The case was within the preliminary stage of investigation and interrogation of the petitioner was unavoidable for the progress of the investigation, the statement added. The anticipatory bail petition will come up for listening to on June 17.