<p class="title">A rights activist has approached the Supreme Court for a direction to quash a sedition FIR registered on January 26 in connection with a play, organised at Shaheen School in Bidar, criticising CAA-NPR-NRC.</p>.<p class="bodytext">She contended the subsequent actions, including arrest of a teacher and a widowed mother, and questioning of children were abuse of the process and violation of fundamental rights of the citizens.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Petitioner, Yogita Bhayana, through her lawyer Utsav Singh Bains sought a direction to put in place a mechanism to prevent misuse of sedition law, and set up a committee to scrutinise complaints before registering an FIR under Section 124A of the IPC.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The petitioner claimed that the Karnataka police, despite the well-settled principle of law and several judgements of the apex court, failed to distinguish between academic discourse and artistic endeavour and the serious criminal act of sedition by lodging the FIR and arresting the teacher and the widowed mother of a student.</p>.<p class="bodytext">She cited various landmark judgements including the Kedar Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar, (1962), on validity of Section 124A of the IPC, where the SC had said, “a citizen has a right to say whatever he likes about the government or its policies but should not incite violence.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">A trial court had on February 14 granted bail to teacher, Fareeda Begum and Najbunnisa, the mother of class IV student who uttered allegedly anti-Modi slur in her dialogue during staging of the play on January 21.</p>
<p class="title">A rights activist has approached the Supreme Court for a direction to quash a sedition FIR registered on January 26 in connection with a play, organised at Shaheen School in Bidar, criticising CAA-NPR-NRC.</p>.<p class="bodytext">She contended the subsequent actions, including arrest of a teacher and a widowed mother, and questioning of children were abuse of the process and violation of fundamental rights of the citizens.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Petitioner, Yogita Bhayana, through her lawyer Utsav Singh Bains sought a direction to put in place a mechanism to prevent misuse of sedition law, and set up a committee to scrutinise complaints before registering an FIR under Section 124A of the IPC.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The petitioner claimed that the Karnataka police, despite the well-settled principle of law and several judgements of the apex court, failed to distinguish between academic discourse and artistic endeavour and the serious criminal act of sedition by lodging the FIR and arresting the teacher and the widowed mother of a student.</p>.<p class="bodytext">She cited various landmark judgements including the Kedar Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar, (1962), on validity of Section 124A of the IPC, where the SC had said, “a citizen has a right to say whatever he likes about the government or its policies but should not incite violence.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">A trial court had on February 14 granted bail to teacher, Fareeda Begum and Najbunnisa, the mother of class IV student who uttered allegedly anti-Modi slur in her dialogue during staging of the play on January 21.</p>
