Terming it as “misconceived”, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by one Rohan Pawar seeking direction to police to register an FIR for offence of sedition against State Election Commission (SEC) for failing to conduct local body polls.
A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and RN Laddha observed: “The present petition from any angle is totally misconceived and required to be rejected and dismissed… In our opinion an offence being invoked against constitutional authority and individual is untenable.”
Pawar had filed a petition in August 2022 seeking that sedition charges be invoked against the SEC for not complying with its constitutional duty of conducting elections on expiry of tenure of existing local bodies. The preparation for the same has to begin six months prior to the expiry of the term.
SEC accused of inciting masses, disturbing peace
The plea contended that by not conducting elections, the SEC is inciting masses and disturbing peace and tranquillity of society. Hence, sedition charges were applicable.
Sachin Shetye, advocate for the SEC, argued that the petition was not maintainable since the petitions regarding sedition are pending before the Supreme Court (SC).
Advocate Prakash Ambedkar, appearing for Pawar, argued that the apex court had stayed invoking sedition charges against individuals. He said that they are seeking sedition charges to be invoked against the post of SEC.
The bench also said that the petitioner is well aware that issue with regards to sedition is pending before the SC. The Government of India had categorically said then that it agrees that prima facie section 124A is not in tune with current social situation and is from a colonial time.
SC stayed all proceedings under Section 123A
In addition, the HC said that the apex court, in May 2022, had stayed all proceedings under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code for sedition. The SC had directed the Union government and state governments to refrain from filing further FIRs under the charges of section till further orders.
“In this view of the matter that petition is pending in the Supreme Court for reconsideration of section 124A, there is no question of such provision being invoked,” the bench said.
.png)
