Aisha Sultana, A Lakshadweep Activist, Has Petitioned The Kerala High Court To Dismiss Sedition Charges

Aisha Sultana
x

Filmmaker Aisha Sultana

Highlights

  • Aisha Sultana, a filmmaker, and activist have filed a petition with the Kerala High Court to have the sedition case against her dismissed because of her controversial claims that the central government was using Covid-19 as a 'bio-weapon' against the islanders.
  • She allegedly declared on June 7 on a TV channel discussion that the central government had employed a 'bio weapon' against the island's population, according to the prosecution.

Aisha Sultana, a filmmaker, and activist have filed a petition with the Kerala High Court to have the sedition case against her dismissed because of her controversial claims that the central government was using Covid-19 as a 'bio-weapon' against the islanders.

The High Court had ordered her bail, stating that the charges against Lakshadweep filmmaker Aisha Sultana, including the sedition charge, are not proved.

On the basis of a plea submitted by the BJP's Lakshadweep unit president, Abdul Khader, Sultana, a resident of Chetlat island, was charged under Sections 124 A (sedition) and 153 B (assertions against national cohesion). She allegedly declared on June 7 on a TV channel discussion that the central government had employed a 'bio weapon' against the island's population, according to the prosecution.

According to the appeal, the claimed crime against her did not fall under Section 124 A of the IPC because the statements uttered or written had to cause hatred, contempt, or discontent towards the government, and such comments should have resulted in impending violence. There was no evidence that the petitioner's statement caused dissatisfaction with the government.

The condemnation and criticisms of political problems, as well as a candid and open conversation, do not constitute a crime of sedition. It was further contended that the offenses under Section 153 B of the IPC would not apply to Aisha Sultana because the statements she spoke were not detrimental to national cohesion or causing division.

The petitioner's comments in the TV Channel discussion must be taken in their context, and words alone cannot be used to infer a motivation. In this scenario, suffice it to say that prima-facie had no evil intent to overthrow the government. According to the petition, her purpose is to express her displeasure with the administrator's alteration of the COVID SOP.

The petitioner's alleged words can only be described as an expression of disapproval of the government's and its officials' acts in order for the current crisis to be solved quickly and efficiently. She never planned to use violence to agitate people or cause a public disturbance.

Show Full Article
Print Article
Next Story
More Stories
ADVERTISEMENTS