Jaipur: The sedition case against an elected councillor of LAHDC (Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Leh), for his remarks against the top leadership and armed forces relating to the Galwan Valley conflict between India and China, has been quashed by the Jammu and Kashmir high court.
The HC observed on Thursday that the remarks demeaned the Indian armed forces but didn’t amount to sedition or other offences (Section 153A, 153B, 505(2) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code). It held that they are protected “by the fundamental guarantee to free speech and expression assured to the citizens of this Country by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India”.
The court also held that the charges of criminal conspiracy in the matter could not be established.
On June 18 last year, an information relating to a leaked audio clip containing an objectionable conversation between Zakir Hussain (petitioner) and Nissar Ahmad Khan about the Indian armed forces in context of the Galwan Valley conflict, was received by the police.
Following this, an FIR was registered at Kargil police station under Section 124A (Sedition), 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration), 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill will between classes) and 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of the IPC.
The police, during the investigation, seized a 6.3 minute long audio clip and arrested the petitioner on June 19, 2020.
The high court also discussed a law point relating to Section 196 and Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The petitioner had argued that the police had no power to lodge an FIR against him and it could have been done only upon a formal complaint by the district magistrate.
He relied on section 196 of the CrPC that states the cognizance of offences punishable under section 124A and Section 153A of the IPC cannot be taken without the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government. And for section 153B or 505(2) of IPC, requirement of sanction of district magistrate can also be taken.
The court clarified that the provisions of Section 196 CrPC don’t stop registration of FIR or investigation by police under section 154 of the CrPC, if information relating to commission of cognizable offence is received by the police.
However, it added that the court will not proceed if the police report is not in consonance with Section 196 CrPC.