Maharashtra govt withdraws controversial sedition circular
27 Oct 2015 11:46 PM IST
State Advocate General Srihari Aney made this statement before a division bench of justices V M Kanade and Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, in response to two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the circular.
Justice Kanade sought to know as to how the circular was issued.
To this, the AG replied that the state government would conduct an exercise to find out how this happened.
He also informed that Chief Minister Devendra Fadanvis, at a recent meeting of officials at Mantralaya, had decided to withdraw the circular.
However, the AG did not mention whether the government would come out with a fresh circular.
Outside the court, Aney told reporters that it was for the government to decide whether it will issue fresh circular.
The BJP-led Maharashtra government had last month admitted that the circular -- which had triggered a row for ostensibly trying to invoke sedition charge for criticising political establishment -- got lost in translation and had promised to bring a revised version.
The high court had earlier restrained the government from acting on the circular.
One petition was filed by famous cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, who was himself arrested on charges of sedition earlier. The other one was filed by advocate Narendra Sharma.
The bench had asked the state to file its reply, failing which the court would treat these petitions as unconverted and decide them at the admission stage itself.
The circular, which sparked a row, had laid down certain conditions required to be considered for initiating action against a person under section 124-A of IPC which deals with sedition.
The state came out with a circular on August 27 laying down conditions to be observed while invoking sedition charge.
It was challenged by Trivedi and others.
According to the petitioners, the circular was unconstitutional and violated fundamental rights of citizens.
Trivedi was arrested on September 8, 2012, on an FIR under section 124A (sedition) and other provisions of IPC for cartoons published on 'India Against Corruption' website.
However, on a PIL, the Bombay high court had granted him bail. Later, the state government, on the advice of the Advocate General, had dropped the charge though the case under other provisions of IPC continued against him.
Trivedi's lawyer Mihir Desai argued that some clauses of the circular issued by the state were vague and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as high courts.
Trivedi's petition opposed the circular as it allegedly said that any citizen criticising a public personality or a politician is responsible for an act of sedition.
"This ambiguity can be misused by the state against an individual citizen for fair criticism of politician or public personality and or against a fair criticism of their policies," his petition contended.
The petition said that the circular, which is meant to prevent misuse of Sec 124A IPC (sedition) by Law Enforcement Department, does not mention even basic ingredients required for invocation of this provision of law against any person.
Trivedi and others contended that clause 1 and 2 of the circular do not mention the basic ingredients of sedition i.e words (spoken or written), signs or representations must be made with object to overthrow or subvert the government (central or state) established by law by "violent means", by creating feeling of contempt or hatred or disaffection against it or by bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt towards it or by exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards it.
The petition said that the "government established by law" has to be distinguished from the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the administration. Also, a politician is not an administrative figure of the government established by law.
The other petition filed by Narendra Sharma also prayed for similar reliefs while submitting that the circular was unreasonable and against the spirit of the Constitution.
Both the petitions prayed for quashing the circular as it infringed upon the fundamental rights of the citizens and was unconstitutional.
The petitions said that in order to invoke the offence of sedition, the "feelings" of contempt or hatred or disaffection against the government established by law or by bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt towards it or by exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards it must also be accompanied by apprehension of public disorder "by acts of violence."
The petitioners contended that clause 1 and 2 of the circular do not mention that "apprehension or anticipated danger" must be based on reasonable ground that the danger apprehended is real and imminent.
Next Story
