Jharkhand police wield sedition stick most to hunt down Maoist rebels

Sedition is a law which makes it illegal to incite hatred against the nation or bring the nation in disrepute by way of words or visual representation (pictures, banners) Oct, 2015: Oct, 2015: Sept, 2012: Dec, 2010: Nov, 2010:

A wave of protests may have rocked the Capital over sedition charges against Jawaharlal Nehru University student Kanhaiya Kumar but thousands of miles away, the Maoist violence-hit Jharkhand has the highest number of such cases in India.

The state registered 18 sedition cases in 2014.

Most of them were against Maoist rebels, their front organisations and sympathisers, who have a presence in 16 of the state’s 24 districts.

Extremist violence has killed 499 civilians and 1,689 policemen in the past 15 years.

Top officials say lower-rung police officers use the 156-yearold sedition provision liberally against Maoist rebels when they attack forces, hoist black flags during national festivals, or are found carrying pamphlets against India’s unity and integrity.

But many of these cases collapse and embarrass the force.

“IPC Section 124- A ( sedition) is very loosely worded and open to varied interpretations,” said Jharkhand police additional director general of police (ADGP) special branch Anurag Gupta.

But do cases end up into convictions? “Unfortunately no, because evidences are scanty and procedures are not followed completely,” Gupta said.

Several senior state police officials conceded there was a severe lack of knowledge about sedition laws among lower rung officers.

In some cases, chargesheets were filed without seeking the government’s permission— mandatory for framing sedition charges — resulting in major embarrassment for the police in courts, said AGDP Anil Palta.

“The cops blatantly used sedition against most of us. The idea

Sedition was introduced to Indian crimminal law by the British in 1860 (Section 124A), nearly 10 years after the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was enacted.

The law was called “highly objectionable and obnoxious” by Jawaharlal Nehru, however no government ment ever attempted to repeal the section.

Jharkhand was to prevent us from getting bail sooner whenever we got caught or surrendered,” said Yugal Pal, once a senior Maoist commander and now a social activist in Palamu.

Pal said as newer laws came in place, police switched from Section 124 (A) to 17 Criminal Law Amendment Act (CLAA) and the Unlawful Assembly Prevention Act (UAPA) as these laws were tougher and required lesser intervention by the state.

But state secretary of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties Shashi Bhushan Pathak said it was easy to “frame” Maoists for sedition as they were locals

From three years to a lifetime in jail. A fine can also be imposed on

the accused.

Bihar

Kerala fighting against forcible usurping of their land and minerals by corporates.

Economist Harishwar Dayal, director of Institute for Human Development ( IHD), eastern regional centre said until nonstate players shun violence and provide alternative growth plans, they will “remain enemies in the eyes of law”.

“India of the 21st century does not require a law used by the colonial government to suppress India’s voice,” said Maoistturned-activist Satishji.

Slain CPI (Maoist) politburo member Koteshwar Rao alias Kishenji had argued with HT

Kovan, a singer, for making internet posts “defamatory” to Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa

Hardik Patel, Patel quota agitation leader, for asking his supporters to allegedly assault police personnel during the Patidar campaign

Aseem Trivedi, a Kanpur based cartoonist, for his cartoons attacking Indian politicians over corruption. Charges were dropped after he spent two weeks in jail West Bengal and Odisha Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh months before his death in an encounter with forces that Maoists were the biggest patriots.

“If Pakistan attacks India, we would be happy to form the first line of defense against them. Unfortunately, the state considers us bigger enemies.”

Another Maoist spokesperson, Bablooji, had said they take 7 % levy for running their revolutionary force and carrying out development programmes in villages.

The government officers take 20-30 % cut in allocating welfare schemes. “Who is anti-national?” he had asked.

The Supreme Court allowed a Hindu adoptive father to keep custody of a 16-year-old Muslim boy on the ground that he took care of the child when the latter got lost and separated from his biological family.

A bench headed by Justice JS Kehar disposed of a plea filed by the boy’s biological mother seeking his custody and said within two years the child would become a major, after which, it would be open for him to decide where he wished to stay. The petitioner, Shahnaz Begum, had moved the SC after the Allahabad HC had declined to give her the child’s custody. She said Akbar had gone missing in 2004. Three years later, she and her late husband became aware of the fact that the boy was living with Aiku Lal in Lucknow.

They moved a plea before the HC asking for their son’s custody. But the court did not accept the couple’s plea in view of the fact that Aiku Lal had taken care of Akbar ever since he found him in Lucknow. He got Akbar educated and brought him up as per Muslim tradition. Aiku Lal apparently remained unmarried due to his commitment to bring up Akbar.

During a hearing in the SC, Akbar, in response to the court query, said he wished his mother and Aiku Lal could reside together so that he can continue to live in their joint custody. However, the court declined to accept his suggestion, which was also turned down by his mother.

THE BOY’S BIOLOGICAL MOTHER HAD FILED A PLEA AFTER SHE FOUND OUT HER LOST SON WAS RAISED BY THE HINDU MAN IN LUCKNOW