The Supreme Court on Wednesday referred to another bench the plea by Gujarat Patidar Anamat Andolan Samiti leader Hardik Patel seeking quashing of an FIR accusing him of sedition for allegedly asking his supporters to kill policemen instead of committing suicide.
After hearing the matter for 40 minutes, the bench of Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Justice Amitava Roy said it would be heard by another bench.
Counsel Kapil Sibal told the court that no case of sedition was made out against the 22-year-old Patel.
Sibal, appearing for Patel, told the court that no utterance that may pose threat to public order under clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression could be covered under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code dealing with sedition.
Patel hit the headlines for unprecedented mobilisation of the Patel community seeking reservation. He was arrested on October 18 by Gujarat Police for insulting the national flag and was re-arrested the next day on charges of sedition.
It has been alleged that on October 3, Patel went to meet a man named Vipul Rasikbhai Desai to dissuade him from committing suicide and told him to instead kill a couple of policemen. Desai had threatened to commit suicide in support of the agitation seeking reservation.
"If you have so much courage, then go and kill a couple of policemen. Patels never commit suicide," Hardik had allegedly told Desai.
Sibal told the court that Britain has already abolished the sedition law and in the US, its federal court has held that sedition law would be attracted only if the utterances pose "clear and present danger".
Referring to a 1962 judgment of the apex court, Sibal said it was held that it would come into play only after examining when, what, where the statement attracting sedition charges was made and what happened prior to that statement and after the making of the statement by the accused.
It was a great opportunity for the court to examine the counter of the sedition law in the country, Sibal told the court, and asked that in the case of Patel, where was the "clear and present danger" that posed a threat to public order, and what has happened from October 3 when he had made the alleged statement, and October 18 when he was arrested.
