“Citizens cannot be put behind bars for disagreeing with State Policies:" Ten reasons why Disha Ravi was granted bail

A Delhi Sessions Court today granted bail to 22-year-old climate change activist Disha Ravi in connection with the farmers protests toolkit FIR..The order was passed by Judge Dharmender Rana in relation to an FIR registered for offences under Section 124A (sedition) and 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language) of Indian Penal Code..The Court gave the following reasons to grant bail to Ravi..Mere engagement with persons of dubious credentials not indictable.One of the main arguments advanced by the government was that a proKhalistani secessionist group namely 'Poetic Justice Foundation' (PJF) and people associated with it were behind the creation of the 'Toolkit' document.It was the prosecution's case that two of Ravi’s associates, Nikita Jacob and Shantanu Muluk, attended a Zoom meeting in which two pro-Khalistani activists of PJF also participated apart along with 60 to 70 other persons from across the world..Mere engagement with persons of dubious credentials not indictable, purpose of engagement is relevant for deciding culpability.Delhi court.Based on this, it was argued that Ravi, along with the founders of PJF, used social media to peddle support for the secessionist Khalistan narrative under the guise of the farmers protests..However, the Court noted that there was nothing on record to establish any direct link between the applicant/accused and the two PJF activists.“In my considered opinion, it is not mere engagement with persons of dubious credentials which is indictable rather it is the purpose of engagement which is relevant for the purpose of deciding culpability,” the Court said..Any person with dubious credentials may interact with a number of persons during the course of social intercourse. As long as the engagement/interaction remains within the four corners of law, people interacting with such persons, ignorantly, innocently or for that matter even fully conscious of their dubious credentials, cannot be painted with the same hue, the Court made it clear..No evidence connecting Disha Ravi to Republic Day violence.The argument by the prosecution was that the actions of Ravi had led to the violence that rocked the national capital on January 26.The Court, however, took a dim view of this argument, stating that there was nothing on record to suggest that there was any call, incitement, instigation or exhortation on the part of the applicant/accused or organizations like PJF and its associates to foment violence on January 26..The Court further observed that though more than hundreds of persons involved in the violence were arrested and interrogated by the Delhi Police, no evidence connecting the applicant/accused with the actual perpetrators of the violence was brought forth on record by the prosecution till date..Merely sharing platform with people who oppose a law is not secessionist tendency.Without any other evidence, the mere sharing of a platform with a group of persons opposing the farm laws cannot lead to presumption that she supported the secessionist tendencies, the Court said.“In the absence of any evidence to the effect that the applicant/accused agreed or shared a common purpose to cause violence on January 26 with the founders of PJF, it cannot be presumed by resorting to surmises or conjectures that she also supported the secessionist tendencies or the violence caused on January 26, simply because she shared a platform with people, who have gathered to oppose the legislation,” the order said..Toolkit does not make out any call for violence.Importantly, the Court reproduced the relevant portion of the much-hyped toolkit and said that perusal of the same revealed that any call for any kind of violence was conspicuously absent..No call for violence of any kind in the Toolkit.Delhi court.Citizens cannot be put behind bars simply because they disagree with the government.The Court observed that citizens are the conscience keepers of the government in any democratic nation. They cannot be put behind the bars simply because they choose to disagree with the State policies..Offence of sedition cannot be invoked to minister to the wounded vanity of the governments.Delhi court .“The offence of sedition cannot be invoked to minister to the wounded vanity of the governments,” the Court said placing reliance on the 1942 judgment in Niharendu Dutt Mazumdar v. Emperor.An aware and assertive citizenry, in contradistinction with an indifferent or docile citizenry, is indisputably a sign of a healthy and vibrant democracy, the Court emphasised..Our civilisation was never averse to varied ideas.The Court quoted a couplet from the Rig Veda to state that Indian civilisation has always accorded respect to divergent opinions..“This 5000 years old civilization of ours has never been averse to ideas from varied quarters. The following couplet in Rig Veda embodies our cultural ethos expressing our respect for divergent opinions.आ नो भदाः कतवो यनतु िवशवतोऽदबधासो अपरीतास उिददः। (Let noble thoughts come to me from all directions).”.Right to dissent firmly enshrined in Article 19, freedom of speech includes right to seek global audience.The Court also said that our founding fathers accorded due respect to the divergence of opinion by recognising the freedom of speech and expression as an inviolable fundamental right..“The right to dissent is firmly enshrined under Article 19 of The Constitution of India,” the Court said..Interestingly, the Court also held that the freedom of speech enshrined in the Constitution covers within its ambit the right to seek a global audience.“There are no geographical barriers on communication. A citizen has the fundamental rights to use the best means of imparting and receiving communication, as long as the same is permissible under the four corners of law and as such have access to audience abroad,” the order stated..Creation of WhatsApp group, editing innocuous Toolkit not an offence.It was contended that Ravi created a WhatsApp group by the name of “Intl farmers strike” and added certain persons to the group. It was also submitted that she deleted the group chat from her phone in an attempt to destroy crucial evidence linking her with the toolkit and PJF. She was alleged to be one of the editors of the toolkit..It was further alleged that she gave a global audience to the secessionist elements by manipulating support of international youth icon Greta Thunberg. It was also claimed that her co-accused Shantanu Muluk came to Delhi to ensure the execution of the plan..In my considered opinion creation of a WhatsApp group or being editor of an innocuous Toolkit is not an offence.Judge Dharmendar Rana.The Court, however, held that creation of a WhatsApp group or being editor of an innocuous Toolkit is not an offence.On the point of Shantanu Muluk coming for the protest march, the Court said that the protest march was permitted by the Delhi Police itself and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in co-accused Muluk reaching Delhi to attend the protest march..No evidence of vandalising Indian embassies.Another allegation by the prosecution was that Ravi along with her associates under the pretext of protesting against the farm laws had resolved to vandalize Indian Embassies, and specifically attack symbols of India i.e. Yoga and Chai.“Except for a bare assertion, no evidence has been brought to my notice to support the contention that any violence took place at any of the Indian Embassies pursuant to the sinister designs of the applicant/accused and her coconspirators,” the Court said..Sketchy, scanty evidence; no criminal antecedents.The Court noted that Ravi was already interrogated in police custody for almost five days and that placing any further restraint upon her liberty on the basis of general and omnibus accusations would be neither logical nor legal.The resistance to the bail plea seems to be more ornamental in nature, the Court added..“Considering the scanty and sketchy evidence available on record, I do not find any palpable reasons to breach the general rule of ‘Bail’ against a 22-year-old young lady, with absolutely blemish free criminal antecedents and having firm roots in the society, and send her to jail,” the Court concluded..[Read Order]