Aisha Sultana moves HC for anticipatory bail

Filmmaker Aisha Sultana  

Aisha Sultana, filmmaker, approached the Kerala High Court on Monday seeking anticipatory bail in a sedition case registered against her by the Kavaratti police for her remarks against the Lakshadweep Administrator.

Ms. Sultana made the remarks during a discussion on a Malayalam TV news channel on June 7 on the controversial proposals of the Lakshadsweep Administrator which have triggered public protests on the islands. She had allegedly stated that the Administrator had used ‘bio-weapon’ against islanders. She has been booked under section 124A (Sedition) and 153B (act prejudicial to maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or casts or communities). She has been asked to appear before the Kavaratti police on June 20.

‘Falsely implicated’

In her petition filed through High Court lawyer P. Vijaya Bhanu, she said she had been falsely implicated in the case ‘with ulterior motives and vexatious intentions.’ She pointed out that the actions of the Administrator had drawn flak from the islanders and people across the globe. It was in this context that she made the remarks.

She had only intended to say that the apathetic approach and reforms of the new Administrator were posing a serious threat to the islanders. She had no intention to excite disaffection towards the administration. She had explained her stance on social media and apologised for her statements.

‘Not a sedition case’

She also argued that the case did not qualify to be one of sedition as the prosecution had failed to satisfy the necessity to constitute an offence under section 124A of IPC. For an offence falling under the section, the words spoken or written should create hatred, contempt, or displeasure against a government, and such words should have resulted in imminent violence. Her statement had not sparked violence or created disaffection towards the government.

Besides, section 153B would not stand as the words spoken were not prejudicial to national integration or causing disharmony or feeling of enmity or hatred or ill-will. Criticism on political matters and candid discussion did not constitute an offence of sedition. Her statements could at best be termed as “expression of disapprobation of the sections of the government and functionaries.” She did not intend to incite people or disturb public peace.

Our code of editorial values

This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Printable version | Jul 28, 2021 5:13:11 PM |

Next Story