The Bombay High Court on Tuesday extended its stay on the implementation of the Maharashtra Government’s controversial circular vesting among other things powers with the police to invoke section 124-A (sedition) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) against persons, for their “words/signs, or representations” spoken or made against politicians or public servants who are representatives of the Government.
Extending its earlier interim order staying the implementation of the August 27, 2015 circular till such time the Maharashtra Government filed its say on the two petition challenging the controversial order on sedition, a HC Bench of Justices VM Kanade and Shalini Phansalkar Joshi set November 27 as deadline for the Government to file to its reply on the two petitions.
The HC Bench’s decision to extend the stay on the controversial sedition order came after the Government pleader Usha Kejriwal told the two judges that she needed some more time, as she had to seek instructions on whether the State Government planned to withdraw the controversial circular or issue a new one incorporating changes therein.
The HC Bench scheduled the next hearing in the case for November 27 and asked the State Government to take a stand on the issue.
The High Court was hearing filed by a Public Interest litigation (PIl) filed by cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, lawyer Narendra Sharma and three others seeking the quashing 0f the August 27, 2015 circular on the ground that it was in violation of the fundamental rights of a person.
Through its August 27, 2015 circular, the State Government had listed guidelines on the pre-conditions for invocation of the section 124-A (sedition) which, the circular stated, were issued in accordance with the assurance given by the State Advocate General in an affidavit submitted before the Bombay High Court in the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi case.
The State Government had given an assurance to this effect to the HC, after the sedition charges were dropped against Trivedi, who had been arrested by Mumbai Police on September 8, 2012 for drawing cartoons that allegedly insulted the national emblems and Parliament.
Seeking to intervene in the case, a journalist from “Tarun Bharat” Bhau Tausekar stated in his plea that he supported the State Government’s circular on sedition on the ground that the State was empowered in extreme and rare circumstances to invoke the anti-sedition law whenever there was rebellion among people or when members of public are incited against obeying laws.
On September 22, the same HC Bench had stayed the controversial circular of August 27, 2015 on sedition and asked the Maharashtra Government to withdraw the controversial circular laying down guidelines for invocation the sedition charges and issue a fresh one in its place if necessary.
“The circular should be withdrawn or a fresh circular should be issued. The State shall not act on the existing circular,” the HC Bench observed, as it asked the State Government to file its reply to the two petitions — one by Sharma and another one filed earlier by Aseem Trivedi.
The HC Bench had also told the State Government that in the event of it filing its reply at the next hearing, the court would decide on the two petitions.
In his PIl, petitioner-lawyer Sharma stated that the controversial circular would rob people of freedom of speech and expression. He also stated that the police might not have the “requisite” training to comprehend the consequences of imposing such a “stringent” provision.
Opposing the controversial circular, another Aseem Trivedi contended that the circular wrongly construed that any citizen criticising a public personality or a politician was responsible of an act of sedition.
Trivedi’s lawyer Mihir Desai argued that some clauses of the impugned circular issued by the State were vague and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as High Courts.