The sedition case against Lakshadweep film-maker Aisha Sultana has all the undesirable indicators of the misuse of the penal provision: intolerance towards any strident criticism of policy, tendency to discern non-existent threats to the state and deliberate resort to it despite the absence of any ingredient of the offence. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the Kerala High Court has granted her anticipatory bail mainly on the ground that neither Section 124A, which penalises seditious speech or writing, nor Section 153B, which seeks to punish imputations against national integration, is attracted. There may be some cause for those in the Lakshadweep administration to feel aggrieved that the film-maker, in the course of a heated discussion on the policy changes sought to be brought about by the Administrator, accused the authorities of unleashing a “bioweapon” against the people by relaxing quarantine rules for those entering Lakshadweep. However, as the court has rightly pointed out, there is nothing in use of the term that tended to create disaffection against the government or incite the people against it. It ought to have been clear to everyone except the administration, its police and the BJP functionary who complained against her speech that there was no malice or motive to subvert the government established by law. Of course, it is noteworthy that the police did not rush to arrest her, but only issued a notice to her to appear before the police to explain her remarks, indicating that there may not have been a threat of arrest.
Yet, the very institution of the case is questionable. It is disconcerting that courts are repeatedly called upon to reiterate that strong speech or writing against government policy is not enough to book someone for sedition, and that only incitement to violence or an inclination to cause public disorder amounts to such an offence. The court considered the political context in which the vehement criticism of the administration has come about. There is much debate about the administrative changes introduced by the Administrator, Praful Khoda Patel, since he assumed office last December. The context, indeed, was the criticism of the modified operating procedure, under which the mandatory provision for quarantining visitors to Lakshadweep was given up. Many attribute the exponential rise in COVID-19 cases to this modification. Another Bench of the High Court has stayed the administration’s order to close down dairy farms run by the Animal Husbandry Department and remove meat from the menu for school mid-day meals. When controversial orders are made, they do have a propensity to attract vehement protests and strident criticism. Unfortunately, the tendency to accuse critics and detractors of having a design to provoke disaffection against the government is spreading among authorities across the country. It is clear the problem lies in the continuance of questionable provisions such as the one on sedition on the statute book.
