Gauhati High Court Reserves Verdict In NIA's Appeal Against Discharge Order In Sedition Case Against MLA Akhil Gogoi
The Gauhati High Court on Monday reserved its verdict in an appeal moved by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) challenging the Special Court's July 1, 2021 order to discharge Assam MLA Akhil Gogoi in a sedition case and clearing him of charges under the stringent UAPA.The bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Malasri Nandi reserved the Judgement after the arguments from both sides...
The Gauhati High Court on Monday reserved its verdict in an appeal moved by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) challenging the Special Court's July 1, 2021 order to discharge Assam MLA Akhil Gogoi in a sedition case and clearing him of charges under the stringent UAPA.
The bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Malasri Nandi reserved the Judgement after the arguments from both sides got concluded on January 9.
The NIA moved the High Court in 2021 against the order of the Special NIA Court discharging him of all the charges in the Chandmari case involving UAPA, sedition, and other offences under the Indian Penal Code.
It may be noted that on July 1, 2021, the Special NIA Judge Pranjal Das had discharged Akhil Gogoi of all charges in the Chandmari case while observing thus:
"..from his speeches available on record, Sri Akhil Gogoi (A-1) cannot be imputed with any incitement to violence. There are also no materials to link A-1 with vandalism and damage to property that took place during the said CAA protest due to such agitations led by various organizations."
The Court had declined to frame charges under Sections 120B, 124A, 153A, and 153B of the IPC and Sections 18 & 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 by holding that no prima-facie case has been made out for framing of charges.
Furthermore, the judge had observed:
"Protests in a democracy are sometimes seen to take the form of blockades also, even causing inconvenience to citizens. However, it is doubtful whether such blockades for temporary periods, if unaccompanied by any incitement to violence, would constitute a terrorist act within the meaning of Section 15 of the UA (P) Act. That in my mind, is beyond the intention of the legislature. There can be other laws to address that."
Consequently, the Court had also discharged other co-accused persons namely Dhirjya Konwar, Manas Konwar, and Bittu Sonowal.
The allegations against Akhil Gogoi were that he had allegedly conspired to incite hatred and disaffection towards the Government established by law, using the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) as a pretext and that they also promoted enmity amongst different groups of people.