Nagpur, Apr 25 (PTI) Amid a row over sedition charge against Maharashtra’s lawmaker-couple Navneet Rana and Ravi Rana over the Hanuman Chalisa recitation plan, renowned lawyer Ujjwal Nikam on Monday said the stringent colonial-era law should be invoked only when there was a strong case, concrete and specific proof against an accused.
Navneet Rana, the Lok Sabha MP from Amravati in eastern Maharashtra, and Ravi Rana, the MLA from Badnera, were charged with sedition and promoting enmity, among others, after their arrest by the police following the couple’s public declaration of reciting the Hanuman Chalisa outside Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray’s private residence in Mumbai.
Speaking to PTI, Nikam, who has been public prosecutor in several high-profile cases, including the 26/11 trial, said before invoking the charge of sedition, authorities must have concrete and specific proof against an alleged offender.
He even questioned whether sedition, which attracts life imprisonment as the maximum punishment, should remain in the law books in a democratic country.
Nikam said the offence of sedition was widely used by British colonial rulers to prevent Indians from revolting against them.
“So, they incorporated this particular provision of law under sedition. After, independence we have adopted a democratic pattern of governance. India is the world’s largest democracy. The Constitution of India has given certain fundamental rights to every citizen. So, every Indian citizen has the right to speak freely or write freely provided such an act does not cause an offence like rioting,” he said.
The noted lawyer said the definition of sedition under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is so wide and exhaustive that it covers a range of acts, including oral and written.
The offence of sedition is committed when any person by words or otherwise brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law.
Nikam pointed out that in the past, the Supreme Court has asked the legislature to have a relook at the offence of sedition and consider whether such a law should still remain in use.
He said the sedition law had a specific mandate like dealing with waging war against the government.
“This was used during the British rule to suppress any revolt or mass movement. But, after independence the position has substantially changed,” Nikam said.
Citing an example of the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts, the lawyer said the charge of waging war was not invoked against the accused in that case.
“However, in (26/11 Mumbai terror case) case I (the prosecution) had invoked this charge of waging war against the Government of India against Ajmal Kasab (who was captured) and his deceased associates because they came from a foreign country with a particular mission.
“Though they had attacked private installations, they had definite intention to destabilize the Government of India…to attack Mumbai so that the country’s economy gets affected and foreigners stay away from making investments in India. If we are invoking sedition, then you must have concrete and specific proof,” opined Nikam. PTI CLS RSY RSY
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.