Objectionable expressions not enough to attract sedition charge, says Mumbai court | Mumbai news

MUMBAI: Member of Parliament Navneet Rana and her husband, legislator Ravi Rana, apparently used “extremely objectionable” expressions against chief minister Uddhav Thackeray, crossing the line but the mere use of derogatory and objectionable words may not be sufficient to charge the couple with sedition, a Mumbai court observed on Wednesday while granting them bail.

“On perusal of the transcript of interviews [the Ranas gave to TV channels], prima facies it appears that the applicants [the couple] have used certain expressions and sentences against the chief minister which are extremely objectionable,” said additional sessions judge Rahul Rokade in the detailed order which became available on Friday. “Undoubtedly, the applicants have crossed the lines of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution of India.”

The court said the sedition charge can be levelled only when the words used have the tendency or intention of creating disorder or disturbance of public peace and violence. “Therefore, though the statements and acts of applicants are blameworthy, the same cannot be stretched too far to bring them within the ambit of section 124A [sedition] of IPC [Indian Penal Code].”

The couple was arrested on April 23 following their insistence on chanting Hanuman Chalisa outside Thackeray’s residence “to remind the Shiv Sena leader of his Hindutva roots”.

Police claimed the couple was part of a larger conspiracy to create unrest in Maharashtra by challenging the state’s highest political authority. They said the couple was part of a big plot to create a challenge to the law-and-order situation to such an extent that it can be used as a ground for the dissolution of the Shiv Sena-led government.

The court refused to accept the contention. “The said announcement [for chanting Hanuman Chalisa] does not in any manner have the tendency of subverting the Government by violent means, nor do the same have the effect of creating hatred, disaffection, or contempt for the Government,” the court said. “It is well settled that section 124A of IPC cannot be invoked to penalize criticism of the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on administration or strong words used to express disapprobation of the measures of Government with a view to their improvement or alteration by lawful means.”