Kerala High Court Refuses To Stay Investigation In Sedition Case Against Aisha Sultana

The Single Bench of Justice Ashok Menon observed that the investigation was still underway and at its infant stage. As a result, more time was granted to the investigating agencies to probe into the matter. However, the details of the ongoing investigation were directed to be produced by the Administration before the Court.

FIR was registered by Kavaratti Police Station under Section 124A(sedition) and 153B (acts against national integration) of the Indian Penal Code based on a complaint by a BJP worker against the alleged remarks made by Aisha Sulthana during a channel discussion that the Government of India had used a "bio-weapon" against the island inhabitants.

Petitioner Aisha Sultana had approached the Court seeking to quash the FIR registered against her by the Kavaratti Police. Advocate Akbar K A appeared for the petitioner and submitted that she did not mean to offend any sentiments while making the said remark.

The petitioner reiterated that the word 'bio weapon' was not used in its literal sense, and that the statement was merely delivered in the heat of the moment amidst an intense debate on the said channel. It was also argued that her statement was merely a criticism of the administrative action, which is permitted under the law.

Moreover, it was asserted by the petitioner that mere usage of strong words does not amount to sedition under Section 124A, unless it incites violence or disaffection. For the above reasons, the FIR was sought to be quashed.

Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi, appearing for the Lakshadweep administration with the assistance of Standing Counsel for the Administration Advocate S Manu, opposed the petition and argued that the investigation was still at its preliminary stage.

This development comes after the petitioner was charged with offences under Section 124A and 153B IPC for making the 'bio weapon' remark on a media channel. When the FIR was registered, she had moved the Court seeking pre-arrest bail.

Thereafter, the Lakshadweep Administration had filed an application submitting that Aisha Sultana had virtually abused the interim protection granted by the Court by violating the prevailing Covid protocol in the Union Territory.

However, the Court had granted anticipatory bail to the filmmaker last month in the matter on the ground that there were no apparent malicious motive to subvert the government through her statement.

Title: Ayshommabi A.M @ Aysha Sultana vs. Union Territory of Lakshadweep