In a democratic setup, there’ll always be voices of dissent against rules: HC

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has observed that laws like sedition, need narrower and stricter interpretation and the acts charged should reflect something more than expressing discontent against the state.
“In a democratic set up, there always would be voices of dissent and opinions against rules and protest against actions. Some protests may have aggression but still an act of dissent would not be ordinarily labelled as sedition. The law is not aimed to silence criticism rather criticism is the key to improvement, reform and radical growth. To attract an offence such as Section 124-A IPC, there must be deliberate resistance and conscious defiance of authority with a conceived plan aimed to unsettle elected government,” the HC has observed.
Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj passed these orders while hearing a bail plea filed by Dharminder Singh alias Fauji and another who were booked for sedition and other offences after police had recovered some posters pertaining to banned outfit Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), Referendum of Khalistan 2020 and the posters declaring Khalistan Zindabad.
The court also observed that the provision of law (sedition) was recently applied in a spate of cases where people protested against established governments for seeking acceptance of their demands, bringing back the focus on the sedition laws. It is not that every mischief would fall in the description of the offence, observed the judge.
The petitioners in this case were booked for sedition, various sections of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, various charges under Arms Act and Information and Technology Act 2000 registered at Police Station Rangar Nangal, Batala district. As per the allegations, the petitioners, who were arrested on November 16, 2018, are members of various WhatsApp groups and that upon their arrest, some weapons, Rs 40,000 currency notes, 110 posters of SFJ, three forms of Khalistan Zindabad, one board containing Punjab Referendum 2020 and some more material was seized from them.
Seeking bail, the counsel for the petitioners contended that upon consideration of the material seized, the offences under the UAPA would not be made out and at best, it would be a case under the Arms Act, 1959. He added that despite the conclusion of the investigation, there is no material available with the investigating agency that would establish any link of the petitioners to any unlawful activities or unlawful association formed by the petitioners.
It was also argued that since the provisions of sedition law has been kept in abeyance on the orders of the Supreme Court, he should be released on bail.
After hearing the plea, HC ordered to release the accused on bail observing that once the trial in a case is not proceeding, the accused cannot be penalized by being forced to undergo confinement.