Gauhati HC Grants Bail To Writer Who Allegedly Questioned Martyr Status Of 22 CAPF Soldiers Involved In Anti-Naxal Operation

What is the case

• The Gauhati High Court on Monday, April 19th, observed that prima facie, Assam-based writer Sikha Sarma had expressed her personal views on the use of the word 'Swahid/martyr' in respect of 22 CAPF soldiers who died in action or were killed on duty (during the Anti-Naxal Operation in Chattisgarh)
• According to the FIR, the accused petitioner posted a Facebook post on April 5, 2021, showing disrespect for the nation's martyrs, and it was also alleged that in her post, the accused petitioner maligned and disregarded the martyrs' sacrifice by urging 'Media' not to generate public sentiments in their favour and not to refer to them as 'Swahids' because they are paid for their service.

What did Shikha say

• She allegedly wrote- "If an individual is paid for his service, he cannot be considered a martyr/swahid if he dies while on duty. If this is the case, an electrical worker who dies from an electric shock should be considered Swahid as well. The news media do not elicit emotional responses from the public."
• The FIR also said that this defamatory statement sparked public outrage on social media because the nation was mourning the death of 22 Jawans during an anti-Naxal operation in Chattisgarh on April 3, 2021.

Court’s observation

• "Taking note of the apprehension of danger to the prisoners' health due to the ongoing second wave of novel Covid-19 pandemic," Justice Ajit Borthakur's bench wrote, "this Court is of the considered opinion that further detention of the accused petitioner, who is a woman, might not be required in the interest of the ongoing investigation."
• The Court observed that the prima facie reasons for the accused petitioner's arrest seem to have arisen primarily from the crime of sedition,' which is punishable under Section 124A of the IPC.
• The Court stated that the crime of 'Sedition' entails three elements: 1. that the accused spoke, wrote, made signs or representations, or performed some other act; 2. that the accused brought or attempted to bring into hatred or contempt, or excited or attempted to excite disaffection, by doing so; and 3. that the said hatred, contempt, or disaffection was directed against the government founded by statute.
• She has been ordered by the Court to refrain from committing any similar offences in the future for which she is convicted or suspected.

What is your say on the case? Let us know in the comment section.