[BREAKING] Kerala High Court grants interim protection from arrest for one week to Lakshadweep filmmaker Aisha Sultana in sedition case

The Kerala High Court on Thursday granted interim protection from arrest for a week to Aisha Sultana, a filmmaker from Lakshadweep in the sedition case registered against her. .A single-judge Bench of Justice Ashok Menon also directed Sultana to co-operate with the investigation and appear before the Lakshadweep Police for interrogation as required under Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). If after interrogation she is arrested, she shall be released on interim anticipatory bail for a period one week, the Court said. The Court also reserved its judgment in the plea by Sultana seeking anticipatory bail. .Last week, the Lakshadweep Police had registered an FIR against Sultana on the basis of a complaint filed by a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader who alleged that Sultana had spread false information about the spread of COVID-19 in the islands and that her remarks on a TV show regarding the new Lakshadweep Administrator Praful Patel, amounted to an "anti-national" act.The prosecution's allegation was that during the show, Sultana stated that the Central government had used a “Bio-weapon” against the natives of the island..The police therefore issued a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to Sultana directing her to appear at the police headquarters at Kavaratti, Lakshadweep on June 20 for interrogation. Apprehending arrest, the filmmaker moved the High Court for anticipatory bail..Explaining the context of her remarks made during the television programme, Sultana's application stated,"With the appointment of the new administrator he brought in several new amendments, modifications and relaxations in the administration rules. It is submitted that these actions of the administration have invited tremendous opposition from the natives as well as from the people across the globe. Lakshadweep is now seeing an exponential rise in COVID-19 patients, the primitive healthcare system and geography of the area is adding to the number of deaths in the place. It was in this context that the applicant was invited for the discussion, and it was while explaining the said situation that such a remark was allegedly made by the applicant.".She further submitted that she had absolutely no intention of inciting disaffection towards the government and that she had immediately taken to her social media account to explain her stand and apologize for the statements made.."It is submitted that criticism on political matters, candid and honest discussions itself does not constitute an offence of sedition. A charge under section 124A IPC lies only when the discussion passes the bounds of fair criticism and when the natural consequence of such statement will incite rebellion and promote public disorder," the petition said. .Stating that she does not have any other criminal antecedents or means to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, Sultana prayed that she be granted anticipatory bail..Senior Counsel P Vijayabhanu, appearing for Sultana, reiterated that the comments were made in the heat of the moment during a panel discussion on TV. Another panelist, who is a seasoned politician, latched on to this and made it out to be the crux of her argument, when that was not the case, he added. He submitted that Sultana fears arrest as news reports of persons being remanded on even bailable offences have been circulating widely. .The Senior Counsel also cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vinod Dua v. Union of India and Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar which held that the provisions of 124A can only be applied to acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder or incite violence with the object of bringing down a lawfully elected government. Sultana's comments do not come within the scope of the provision, he added while maintaining that he was not going to go too much into the merits of the case since the plea is for anticipatory bail. .Advocate Manu S, Standing Counsel for the Central government, argued that the provisions under Kedar Nath and Vinod Dua refer only to acts that have a tendency to incite public disturbance and that imminent violence is not necessary. He also said that there is no grounds to grant anticipatory bail when only a notice to appear at the police station has been issued so far. Fear is not a reasonable ground to attract the provisions under Sec 438 of CrPC, he contended. .He maintained that law enforcement authorities in Lakshadweep have not acted in haste and only issued a notice to appear for investigation. .The Court after hearing rival arguments granted interim relief for one week to Sultana while reserving its judgment. .Amidst the recent spike in COVID-19 cases, the Lakshadweep Islands have been embroiled in protests against various administrative measures introduced by current Administrator Praful Patel. The protests were sparked by the proposed Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation, Lakshadweep Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Regulation (Goondas Act) and Lakshadweep Animal Preservation Regulations, which effectively introduces a ban on beef on the island..[Lakshadweep] Plea in Kerala HC seeks "sufficient opportunity" to public for expressing opinion on Draft LDAR, Animal Preservation Regulations.Petitions have been filed before the Kerala High Court against the administration's measures.The Kerala Assembly has also recently passed a unanimous resolution demanding that the new Administrator be recalled..[Read live account of hearing below].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.