Background
A Delhi court has allowed the withdrawal of the sedition case filed against activist and former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader Shehla Rashid. The case was based on her 2019 tweets alleging human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation of Article 370. The police had registered an FIR under Section 124A (sedition) and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), but later sought to drop the case.
Court’s Rationale
- No Sufficient Evidence
- The prosecution informed the court that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the charges.
- The police had not found material to establish that Rashid’s tweets had incited violence or disrupted public order.
- Scope of Free Speech
- The court noted that Rashid’s statements, while critical of the government, did not amount to sedition as per the Supreme Court’s interpretation in earlier judgments.
- It emphasized that political criticism and dissent cannot be criminalized unless they incite violence or create public disorder.
- Withdrawal in Public Interest
- The police submitted that pursuing the case was not in the public interest and would amount to an unnecessary legal burden.
- The court, agreeing with this view, allowed the withdrawal, highlighting that criminal prosecution should not be used to curb free speech.
Existing Measures
- Sedition Law Under Review: The Supreme Court had earlier put Section 124A (sedition) on hold, stating that it required reconsideration.
- Legal Precedents on Free Speech: The judiciary has repeatedly held that criticism of the government, without inciting violence, does not constitute sedition.
- Police Discretion in Case Withdrawals: Law enforcement agencies have the authority to withdraw cases if deemed unnecessary or lacking evidence.
Conclusion
The Delhi court’s decision reinforces the principle that sedition laws should not be used to suppress dissent. By allowing the withdrawal of the case, the ruling aligns with judicial precedents protecting free speech while ensuring that criminal law is not misused for political purposes.