New Delhi: Delhi Lieutenant Governor (L-G) Vinai Kumar Saxena has granted the Delhi Police sanction to prosecute author-activist Arundhati Roy, as well as a former professor at the Central University of Kashmir, in connection with an FIR registered against them in 2010.
The case relates to certain statements made by Roy and Dr Sheikh Showkat Hussain, a former professor in international law at the Central University of Kashmir, at a convention on Kashmir, ‘Azadi: The Only Way’, organised in New Delhi in October 2010.
According to media reports, the sanction will allow Roy’s prosecution under IPC sections 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) and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief).
The FIR, registered in November 2010, also named the late Hurriyat hardliner Syed Ali Shah Geelani.
The complaints filed in the matter alleged that Roy and the others delivered provocative speeches on Kashmir in public at the event, organised by the Committee for the Release of Political Prisoners (CRPP), headed by the late Delhi University professor Syed Abdul Rahman (S.A.R.) Geelani, who was acquitted by the Supreme Court in the 2001 Parliament attack case.
Why has the case dragged on for over a decade, and why did the Delhi Police require the L-G’s sanction? ThePrint explains.
Also Read: Arundhati Roy is being made into an undeserved martyr. Her words made zero impact
‘Azadi — the only way’
Roy’s comments at the Kashmir event had triggered a major controversy at the time.
After the October 2010 event, a large group of BJP Mahila Morcha members protesting against Roy’s remarks on Kashmir broke into the compound of the writer’s residence.
A Kashmiri Pandit group, Roots in Kashmir (RIK), filed a case against Geelani, Arundhati Roy and a few others, according to media reports. Meanwhile, a group of three complainants led by a Kashmiri Pandit, Abhishek Kaul, also filed a criminal complaint against Roy, Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Hussain, demanding action against them.
They alleged that the accused made “anti-India, anti-national statements aimed at provoking and inciting Kashmiri youth to stand against Indian armed forces”.
A criminal complaint can be filed directly before a magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
In November 2010, Metropolitan Magistrate Navita Kumari Bagha of the Patiala House courts ordered the Delhi Police to register an FIR against Roy, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, poet-activist Varavara Rao (also an accused in the Bhima Koregaon case), Delhi University’s S.A.R. Geelani, Sheikh Showkat Hussain, and two others.
An FIR was registered in November 2010 at Tilak Marg Police Station.
However, Syed Ali Shah Geelani and S.A.R. Geelani died while the case was pending, in 2021 and 2019, respectively.
The case also involves Section 124A of the IPC, but the sanction does not mention it since the matter related to sedition is pending in the Supreme Court.
In May last year, the apex court put on hold all pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to charges under the sedition law until the Centre completes re-examining its provisions.
Last month, it referred the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the sedition law to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
What does the law say?
Under Section 196 of CrPC, the central or state government is required to grant a sanction before courts can take cognisance of certain offences under the IPC.
This includes cases involving offences under Section VI of the IPC, which covers Sections 121 to 130, and lists offences against the State, including sedition.
Sanction is also required for offences such as 153A and 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs).
Simply put, Section 196 of CrPC mandates that courts cannot frame charges in cases invoking these provisions and begin trial unless the government grants such a sanction to allow prosecution.
Also Read: Arundhati Roy joins Shashi Tharoor, Kangana Ranaut in list of ‘casteless’ upper-caste Indians
‘Very sorry state of affairs’
Since the FIR was filed by the police, the criminal complaint filed by Kaul was stayed in view of Section 210 of the CrPC.
This provision says that when a case is instituted without a police report — by a complaint before the magistrate in this case — and during the course of inquiry or trial, a police investigation is in progress in relation to the same offence, the magistrate shall stay the proceedings of the the inquiry or trial, and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.
However, a magistrate court in Delhi has been keeping track of the case, pulling up the investigating agency for the delay in the probe.
According to the last order passed in the case, on 14 September, the court was informed that the investigation is “almost complete”.
In an order passed in September 2020, the court noted that the matter was still pending investigation. In his order, Metropolitan Magistrate Pawan Kumar also took note of a status report filed by the investigating officer, which said that the CDs submitted by the complainant were found to be “unauthentic and reported to be edited and tampered (sic)”.
The CDs were then sent for further examination, the order noted, adding, “It is further reported that the CDs have been sent to CFU for further examination and the result is still awaited from the CFSL, CBI, Lodhi Road.”
The court then asserted that “it is (a) very sorry state of affairs that the matter has been pending for investigation for the last ten years and still the conclusion of investigation is not in near sight”.
“There is no reason for so much delay in concluding the investigation,” it added. The investigating officer (IO) then assured the court that he will conclude the probe and file the final report within two months.
However, on the next date of hearing, on 23 November 2020, the IO was not present in court. The court then ordered the IO to appear in person and file a final report on 18 December 2020.
‘Absent IO’
Covid held up the proceedings in the case, before it was taken up again last year.
In September 2022, the IO told the court that the final report would be filed within 45 days. In December last year, the ahlmad (court officer responsible for the safe custody of the case records) told the court that the file for the case was “not traceable”. So the matter was adjourned again, with the court warning him to be “careful in future”.
In January this year, the court was reassured that the probe was “almost complete and the sanction U/s 196 CrPC is awaited”.
In August this year, when the IO remained absent despite the court asking him to appear before it, the court issued a bailable warrant of Rs 5,000 against him.
When the case came up before the court on 14 September, the status report filed by the IO once again said that “the investigation of the case is almost complete and the matter is pending for sanction U/s 196 CrPC”, according to the order.
The court then posted the matter for 10 November, and asked the IO to “apprise the progress of the case on the next date of hearing”.
(Edited by Sunanda Ranjan)
Also Read: Churchill to Arundhati Roy—Sahebs Who Never Left documentary is confused who to blame