Kerala High Court Stays Sedition Proceedings Against Filmmaker Aisha Sultana For 3 Months

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday granted interim relief to filmmaker Aisha Sultana by staying the sedition proceedings pending against her arising from the FIR registered in 2021 by the Lakshadweep Police for a period of 3 months.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A passed the interim order in a plea moved by the filmmaker seeking to quash all proceedings under Section 124A  of IPC based on the recent order of the Supreme Court staying all investigations and trials in sedition cases.

"No further action will be taken by the Lakshadweep police in her case," the Court held. 

Last year, Aisha Sultana had made headlines for her alleged remarks during a channel discussion regarding the new Lakshwadeep Administrator bringing in significant changes in COVID-19 protocol on the islands, which was blamed for the sudden rise in COVID positive cases in the Union Territory. She had hinted that the Government of India had used a "bio-weapon" against the island inhabitants.

Soon, an FIR was registered by Kavaratti Police Station against Sultana under Sections 124A (sedition) and 153B (acts against national integration) of IPC, based on a complaint by a BJP worker who argued that this was an 'anti-national act'

Sultana had secured pre-arrest bail in the case last year where the single-judge found that she did not have a malicious motive to subvert the Government by merely using the strong words to express her vehemence in disapproval of the subject under discussion.

Nevertheless, it had declined to stay the proceedings against her finding that the investigation was still underway and at its infant stage and that more time was granted to the investigating agencies to probe into the matter.

After the Apex Court put the sedition law on hold, Sultana moved the Court again seeking to quash the FIR registered against her through Advocate Akbar K.A. 

In her plea, the petitioner submitted that she was 'distressed' and 'highly aggrieved' by the incorporation of her name as the sole accused in the case. It was added that as a native and resident of the islands, she merely raised her voice against the draconian amendments introduced by the new Administrator and asserted that she had no ulterior motives or ''vexatious intentions'' and she has been falsely implicated in the case. 

Following the direction of the Supreme Court, an interim relief was granted to the petitioner. 

Case Title: Ayshommabi AM @ Aysha Sulthana v Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 267