The Gujarat High Court will pronounce the order on the petition filed by Hardik Patel to nullify sedition charges leveled against him on October 27. The advocate who appeared for Hardik contended that the sedition charges were raised against him by the Government to curb his move. On last Friday, the Court reserved the order regarding the petition filed by Hardik who was the leader of Patidar Anamat Andolan Samiti (PAAS) to quash the FIR filed against him. The FIR states that Patel is guilty of Sedition and spreading hatred among communities. Patel is alleged to have made a remark to Vipul Desai who is also a member of PAAS that ‘kill four-five policemen instead of committing suicide’. Desai had already made an announcement that he will commit suicide if the government did not accept their demands regarding reservation.
Justice J B Pardiwala at the time of hearing raised a question that whether making some statement against few policemen leads to spreading hatred among communities as provided under Section 153 A of Indian Penal Code. The Court further asked whether Patel was trying to group the policemen under certain community. The Public Prosecutor answered the statement and said that it was true to some extent. The Prosecutor also stated that his answer was the reflection of some incidents that happened since August. The PAAS leaders have made allegations against police atrocities. At the same time the police have also lodged complaint against PAAS leaders for causing destruction to police stations, attacking policemen and also killing of a police men.
The Prosecutor also requested the Court to consider the entire situations that was prevailing instead of considering few words. There was also a confusion that whether Section 124 A under Indian Penal Code dealing with Sedition was applicable in the present situation construing the words ‘established by law in India’ as provided in the section. The Prosecutor stated that Police being a constituent part of maintaining law and order, they will come under the purview of the section. But the lawyer who appeared for Patel argued that as the petitioner was not making a public statement, the section will not be applicable. After hearing both sides, the Court reserved its order to be pronounced on 27th of this month.
Adv. Jewel Panicker