In Hyderabad, Lawyers Point to Another Case of Sedition Law Misuse

The Hyderabad police recently dropped a sedition case filed against three youth based on a sting operation by Republic TV.

Representative image of Hyderabad police. Credit: PTI

New Delhi: The Hyderabad police’s decision to drop sedition cases against three youth who were booked in May last year is being called yet another example of misuse of the sedition law, despite the Supreme Court’s warning to the police in 2016. The youth were booked for allegedly professing their allegiance to ISIS in a sting operation conducted by Republic TV. The police has now stated that they are closing the case since the channel had not submitted the original tapes to them.

Abdullah Basith, Salman Mohiuddin and Abdul Hanan Qureshi were detained by the police after the case was registered, but were let off once the police “did not find much evidence”.

In its sting operation aired in May 2017, Republic TV had shown the three youth pledging their support to ISIS and claiming that they were willing to join the radical organisation. The special investigation team had subsequently registered a case under Sections 121(A) (waging war against the state) and 124(A) (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, and summoned the three.

However, the police did not find much evidence against them. DCP Avinash Mohanty was quoted by the Indian Express as saying, “While one youth was seen bragging about his continued allegiance to the IS, the other two appear to be talking about their previous experience of getting radicalised and regretting it. But we did not find much evidence that they had intention of committing a crime or instigating violence. It was not that the three men were in hiding and making plans. They had been appearing before the investigation officer every week in regard to their previous case.”

The three youth had stated that their statements were taken out of context and only the portions which indicated their supposed leaning towards ISIS were shown.

Mohanty claimed that Republic TV was asked for the unedited tapes but it did not respond, and so they decided to file the closure report.

However, Republic TV told the Indian Express:

“Republic TV categorically denies the allegation that it did not hand over the entire unedited footage to the Hyderabad Police in connection with the investigative story that it aired on the ISIS sympathisers and supporters from Hyderabad. Republic TV physically handed over the entire unedited footage of the sting operation to the Hyderabad Police and on multiple occasions offered to share all the information with the authorities in writing. Our reporter also offered, in writing, that her statement be recorded by the Hyderabad Police — an offer which is still to be taken up by the law and order authorities. If the Hyderabad Police does not want to act against radicalised elements, it is their concern and a matter of public concern as well.’’

Mohanty, however, insisted that the footage provided by the channel was edited. “We then asked for the original devices which were used to record the conversations, but they declined to provide that. With edited versions on CD, it is difficult to ascertain how the conversation started and the context in which a person is making some claim.”

‘Aggrieved can file for defamation if mala fide intent involved’

In the meantime, senior advocate Abdul Majeed Memon told The Wire that this sedition case has shown that it was not for journalists to probe matters. “You may be a very talented or a conscientious and competent investigative journalist, but still you are not a professional because you have no powers in law to investigate and charge. You can at best collect material and pass it on to an official investigative agency, be it local police, CBI or NIA. It is for them to scrutinise, to conform and to act on that.”

Memon said, “The question is when you performed this sting as a journalist, what was your motivation. Whether it was a mala fide act or a bona fide act. Was it meant to enjoy some kind of credit and laurels and to put someone else to embarrassment, which is undeserved. In that even you are liable for action. The aggrieved person can issue notice to you and sue you for defamation. That is the position in law.”

He insisted that the accused persons “can also have a cause of action against the state if it has harassed them. But thousands of people in our country are arrested and let off later. Some of them are also acquitted after trial but everybody does not get compensation. So if it is an intended mala fide act then they can proceed against anybody who has made the false accusations.”

“Under the law,” Memon said, “every citizen has the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the constitution which needs to be protected. It is the foundational right. If there is a violation you can file a writ petition in the high court.”

Sedition law only applies when there is violence, incitement: SC

Meanwhile, several lawyers in the past have also spoken against misuse of the sedition law. Soon after Madhya Pradesh police dropped sedition charges against 15 Muslim men arrested for allegedly celebrating Pakistan’s victory against India in the Champion’s Trophy final, they had noted that this was in violation of not only the caution issued by the Supreme Court but also its direction to follow its earlier Kedar Nath judgment in which it had stated that Section 124A (sedition) would only be applicable where there is violence or incitement of violence.

The Supreme Court had noted:

“We are of the considered opinion that the authorities while dealing with the offences under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code shall be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar case. Except saying so, we do not intend to deal with any other issue as we are of the considered opinion that it is not necessary to do so. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off.”

On ways to curb the misuse of the sedition law, senior lawyer Mehmood Pracha had suggested that the answer lies in booking those police officers who exceed their authority or misuse or abuse their power under Section 167 of the IPC which pertains to “public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury”.

Supreme Court advocate Indira Jaising had said that “the entire sedition section needs to be repealed. It has no place in a country which is independent and democratic.” In cases where there was an abuse of discretion by the authorities, she said the person charged with a crime expected relief from courts, but often no such relief is forthcoming.