Hyderabad HC ruling allows Roja’s return to AP Assembly

DECCAN CHRONICLE. | S A ISHAQUI

Published Mar 18, 2016, 2:24 am IST

Updated Mar 18, 2016, 8:49 am IST

Order not an endorsement of petitioner’s conduct, says Judge

 Judge said that the order would not preclude the House from taking any appropriate action pursuant to the pending privilege proceedings.

Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Thursday paved the way for YSR Congress MLA Ms R.K. Roja to attend the ongoing Budget Session of AP Legislative Assembly by granting an interim suspension of a motion moved by the House suspending the MLA from attending Sessions for a year.
The AP Assembly had unanimously passed a resolution to suspend Ms Roja from Nagari Assembly segment in AP on December 18, 2015, during the discussion on call money issue, on the ground of obstructing the proceedings of the House and also allegedly making derogatory remarks against Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu.

Ms Roja had initially challenged her suspension before the High Court followed by the Supreme Court, which had reverted the matter back to the High Court.
Justice A. Ramalingeswara Rao, who concluded the hearing on Wed-nesday, granted an interim order in favour of the petitioner by observing that “since this court came to the prima facie conclusion that motion carried out was contrary to Rule 340 of the Rules of the House, this Court has to consider the balance of convenience in the instant case.”
The judge added, “The petitioner is an elected member of the Assembly and in the normal course she is entitled to participate in the proceedings. If the suspension is continued during the pendency of the petition, the right of participation would be affected and cannot be restored in the event of her success in the case. Hence, there shall be an interim suspension of the motion, pending disposal of the petition.”
While granting the interim order, the judge made it clear that the order was not an endorsement of the conduct of the petitioner on December 18, 2015 in the House or against the authority of the Speaker to take action against the erring member, but only a prima facie expression of the legality of the motion passed on the day.
He added that the order would not preclude the House from taking any appropriate action pursuant to the pending privilege proceedings.
While adjourning the case for four weeks, the judge noted that the issu-es with regard to the ap-plication of principles of natural justice in a case like this, whether the Ho-use possessed the power to suspend a member etc. had to be considered in detail in the petition.

HC sets aside resolution seeking suspension of Roja from AP Assembly

DECCAN CHRONICLE. | S A ISHAQUI

Published Mar 17, 2016, 11:54 am IST

Updated Mar 17, 2016, 11:54 am IST

The judge found that prima facie the House has no power to suspend a member.

 YSRCP MLA R K Roja. (Photo: DC)

Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Thursday set aside the resolution passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly suspending YSRCP MLA R K Roja of Nagari Assembly segment for a period of one year.
While granting the interim order on petition by Ms Roja, Justice A Ramalingeswara Rao said that the suspended MLA at liberty to attend on going Assembly session of AP.
The judge found that prima facie the House has no power to suspend a member under Rule 340 of Assembly Rules for a period of one year, the Rule has given power to the House to move a motion against the member for suspension of member for that particular session.
The judge felt that balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner and set aside the resolution and adjourned the hearing for four weeks.

Many sedition cases since Independence failed legal test

DECCAN CHRONICLE. | S A ISHAQUI

Published Mar 8, 2016, 1:57 am IST

Updated Mar 8, 2016, 1:57 pm IST

All sedition cases, except one, weren’t upheld; court feels criticising government doesn’t mean disloyalty.

 Jawarharlal Nehru University Student Union president Kanhaiya Kumar addresses media at the university campus along with other student leaders in New Delhi after he was granted bail.

Hyderabad: Many sedition cases booked since Independence have failed to withstand judicial scrutiny, except in Kedar Nath v State of Bihar where the Supreme Court upheld the charge, with certain caveats in 1962.
In one of the earliest cases, the Punjab-Haryana High Court in Tara Singh Gopi Chand v the State on November 28, 1950, struck down Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which defines sedition, holding it to be unconstitutional as it was contrary to the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a).
Eight years later, in Ram Nandan v State of UP, the Allahabad HC held that Section 124A imposed restrictions on the freedom of speech which was not in the interest of the general public and declared it ultra vires.
Ram Nandan, who was fighting for the cause of farmers and agricultural labour in UP, was charged with sedition for an inflammatory speech on May 29, 1954, accusing the Congress rule of not being able to address extreme poverty in the state and exhorting cultivators to form an army and overthrow the government if needed.
Read: Sloganeering is not sedition
He accused the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru of being a traitor for dividing the country. These decisions were overruled in 1962 by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath, stating that any law which is enacted in the interest of public order “may be saved from the voice of constitutional invalidity.”

Case studies since independence on sedition

Kedar Nath was a member of Forward Communists Party of Bihar and was charged with sedition for accusing the Congress government of corruption, and targeting Vinobha Bhave’s attempts to redistribute land, at a speech in Barauni in 1953. A five-judge bench of the SC headed by Chief Justice B.P. Sinha upheld Section 124A, stating that it is intra vires.
Justice Sinha, however, laid down certain caveats. He observed, “Comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of the actions of the government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal. In other words, disloyalty to the government established by law is not the same thing as commenting in strong terms upon the measures or acts of the government, or its agencies, so as to ameliorate the condition of the people...”
Read: No arrest so far in sedition cases in Telangana
In Balwant Singh and Another v State of Punjab in 1995, the SC held that the casual raising of slogans once or twice by two individuals alone cannot be aimed at exciting or attempting to excite hatred or disaffection towards the government as established by law in India. The duo had raised anti-India slogans on October 31, 1984, the day Indira Gandhi was assassinated.
In Indra Das v State of Assam as recently as 2011, the top court ruled that the provisions of Section 124A have to be “read in a manner so as to make them in conformity with the Fundamental Rights”.
The word sedition has  not been defined in the Constitution. Section 124A which is part of Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code, deals with “offences” against the State.
It defines sedition as “Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring in hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.”
Sedition was not a part of the original Indian Penal Code enacted in 1860 by the British government. It was introduced in 1870 to quell the freedom struggle and retain imperial power.
After sedition was introduced as a crime, British courts in India convicted Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, and Mahatma Gandhi.
Gandhi after his prosecution in 1922 for sedition, said, “Section 124 A is perhaps the prince among the political sections of Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of a citizen.”