ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has said that sedition cases registered without following due procedure are a waste of state’s time and resources, noting that such complaints must be initiated by the federal or a provincial government by an authorized person “after considering the relevant factors of the alleged incident with reasons”.
The IHC made the observations in a seven-page detailed verdict in the Shandana Gulzar Khan case.
A case was registered against Shandana, a Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawmaker and leader, on January 30 over controversial remarks that she made in a TV show. She was the third PTI parlimentarian to be booked for alleged sedition after Azam Swati and Shahbaz Gill.
The FIR
In the FIR, the complainant had alleged that the PTI leader levelled serious allegations against the armed forces and attempted to incite violence. The FIR read the PTI leader had implied that terrorism was spread across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) province in a planned manner.
According to the FIR, Shandana had attempted to create disharmony and incite violence in the country. A single judge IHC bench, comprising Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, however, quashed the FIR on March 24.
IHC Verdict
In the detailed verdict, the court observed that on plain reading of the contents of the FIR as well as the recorded interview text, it appeared that the accused made sarcastic comments about certain personalities and as such there was no element of incitement or sedition in the comments.
It said in cases of sedition, accusations of incitement of public to insurrection and rebellion are required to be demonstrated either through the words used or from any other evidence or action of the accused.
“Sedition has been described, as disloyalty in action and the law considers as sedition all those practices, which have for their object to excite discontent or dissatisfaction, to create public disturbance, or to lead to civil war, which is not the case in hand.”
Presenting a seven-point guideline, the court noted that in order to qualify as sedition the offence must contain promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will among different religious, racial, linguistic, regional groups or castes.
“Words, deeds or writing used to disturb the tranquility of the state or to subvert the government [or to] incite the people to incursion and rebellion [may qualify as sedition].”
The verdict added such a complaint must be initiated by the federal or a provincial government by a person authorized under the law after considering the relevant factors of the alleged incident with reasons. It said that private persons cannot agitate the matter regarding seditions of charge; rather it should be initiated, inquired and investigated by the government or at least on their direction.
The judgment also noted that no useful purpose was served by placing such criminal cases before the court as it would consume much time and resources of the state by placing unnecessary burden. It added that therefore, quashing of such FIRs is more advisable.
