"Rather than inciting violence, he was exhorting people not to indulge in violence:" NIA court discharges Akhil Gogoi in UAPA, sedition case

A Special NIA Court in Gauhati has discharged Sibsagar MLA Akhil Gogoi of all the charges against him under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and offences including sedition under Indian Penal Code in relation to December 2019 protests and speeches against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and alleged links with Maoist organisations in the Chandmari case. .The discharge order was passed by Special Judge Pranjal Das, NIA Court, Gauhati who held that speeches delivered by Gogoi did not contain any incitement to violence.The Court went to the extent of stating that the speeches made by Gogoi far from inciting violence, in fact exhorted people not to resort to violence. "In his speech transcript available document D-56, rather than inciting violence, A-1 is exhorting people not to indulge in violence and seems to be doing so fervently," the Court said.The Court underscored that temporary blockades/protests without incitement to violence would not constitute a terrorist act under Section 15 of UAPA."Protests in a democracy are sometimes seen to take the form of blockades also, even causing inconvenience to citizens. However, it is doubtful whether such blockades for temporary periods, if unaccompanied by any incitement to violence, would constitute a terrorist act within the meaning of Section 15 of the UAPA. That in my mind, is beyond the intention of the legislature," the order said. .The other three co-accused (Dhirjya Konwar, Manas Konwar and Bittu Sonowal) in the case were also discharged by the court."On the basis of the materials before this court and in view of the narration and discussion in the preceding paragraphs and findings thereon, all the 4 (four) accused persons, namely, Sri Akhil Gogoi (A-1), Sri Dhirjya Konwar @ Dhajya Konwar @ Dhaijya Page 120 of 120 Konwar (A-2), Sri Manas Konwar @ Manash Pratim Konwar (A-3) and Sri Bittu Sonowal @ Bittu Sonwal @ Bitu Sonowal (A-4) are hereby discharged u/s 227 Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds and sureties stand discharged.".Gogoi was charged under various provisions of Unlawful Prevention Activities Act (UAPA) and for Sedition (section 124A), promoting enmity between religious groups (section 153A) and 153B (Statement against national integration) under the Indian Penal Code..The Court observed that as per Section 15 of UAPA, for an act to constitute a terrorist act, requisite intention is necessary. That is, the act has to be done with the intention of threatening the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or with the intention to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or any foreign country..However, as per the material available on record, none of the speeches delivered by Gogoi contain any incitement to violence, the Court said."From his speeches available on record, Sri Akhil Gogoi (A-1) cannot be imputed with any incitement to violence. There are also no materials to link A-1 with vandalism and damage to property that took place during the said CAA protest due to such agitations led by various organizations," it observedThe Court also said that there are no materials whatsoever, about Akhil Gogoi making any imputations prejudicial to unity and integrity of India or national integration.After examining the speeches, the Court even went on to observe that Gogoi was, in fact, exhorting people not to indulge in violence."Thus, in his speech transcript available document D-56, rather than inciting violence, A-1 is exhorting people not to indulge in violence and seems to be doing so fervently," the Court said. There is one statement at the end about stopping transportation of natural resources from Assam, the Court noted. "(However), there is no material to indicate that such stoppage of natural resources from this part of the country to the rest took place as a result of any such statement by A-1 (Gogoi). Moreover, that statement alone cannot be used to impute frame charge for terrorism," the Court said. Hence, the statements and conversations do not make out any offence under Section of 18 UAPA – of conspiracy, abetment, advise, advocacy of a terrorist act defined in Section 15 of the Act, the Court ruled..As regards sedition, the Court adverted to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Vs. State of Bihar, where the court while interpreting the meaning of sedition under Section 124A IPC, had held:“The provisions of the sections read as a whole, along with the explanations, make it reasonably clear that the sections aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence."Applying the same to the instant case, the Court noted that there is lack of material linking Gogoi personally and vicariously to the vandalism, property damages etc. during the CAA protests. "It is not possible to come to any prima facie finding that A-1 caused public disorder through incitement of violence or tried to overthrow duly elected legitimate Government through violent means, so as to try him for sedition," the Court concluded. The Court arrived at similar conclusions with respect to offences under Sections 153A and 153B. .It, therefore, discharged Gogoi. On June 22, the special court had discharged Gogoi in another case in relation to December 2019 protests against CAA at Chabua in Assam..[Read Judgment]