KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Friday declined to stay the investigation in the sedition case registered by Kavaratti police against filmmaker-activist Aisha Sultana for her controversial remarks that the central government had used COVID-19 as a 'bio-weapon' against the islanders.
Justice Ashok Menon directed the Kavaratti police to inform the court of the progress of the investigation within two weeks. When the counsel for Aisha Sultana sought an interim order staying further proceedings in the case, the court observed that the investigation is at the infant stage and the prosecution would have to be given more time to collect necessary material. It is too early to throw away the prosecution case at the threshold itself. Therefore, no interim order could be passed.
When the petition filed by Aisha Sultana seeking to quash the FIR came up for hearing, Aman Lekhi, Additional Solicitor General of India, who is appearing for Lakshadweep administration, submitted that the court can interfere in the investigation only in exceptional cases and not in a case like this. The investigation of the case is at the initial stage. The ASG added that repeated assertions by the accused that the central government used a bio-weapon are seditious. He further argued that no reason pleaded in the petition is sufficient to quash the FIR and investigation is to be permitted to go on.
The petitioner stated that the offence alleged against her did not come under Section 124 A of IPC as the words spoken or written have to bring about hatred, contempt or displeasure against a government and such words should have resulted in imminent violence. There was no case that the statement of the petitioner has created disaffection towards the government. The criticism on political matters, candid and honest discussion itself do not constitute an offence of sedition. It was further argued that the offences under Section 153 B of the IPC also will not stand against Aisha Sultana as the words spoken are not prejudicial to national integration or causing disharmony.
The alleged statements of the petitioner can only be termed as an expression of disapprobation of actions of the government and its functionaries so that the prevailing situation could be addressed quickly and effectively. She never intended to incite people or disturbance of public peace by resorting to violence.
The High Court had granted her bail observing that prima facie the offences, including the sedition charge, alleged against her are not attracted.