Kavaratti: The Lakshadweep administration informed the Kerala High Court on Tuesday that filmmaker-activist Aisha Sultana, who is accused of sedition, deleted all her mobile chats after the case was registered by Kavaratti police and is not cooperating with the investigation.
The administration opposed Aisha’s request to quash the case, stating that she had failed to cooperate properly with the police and deleted several chats and messages in a suspicious manner after the case was registered. A close watch of the TV debate revealed she was reading something from her mobile phone before making the seditious remarks and she was in constant contact with others at the time.
According to Lakshadweep officials, her financial activities are not transparent, and many aspects need to be investigated. ‘She has not cooperated properly with the investigation and refused to provide documents requested by the police. Meanwhile, she has engaged in a malicious media campaign against police after filing the petition in the HC and raised several baseless allegations against them. Apparently, she intends to dissuade the police from conducting a proper investigation by launching false propaganda,’ the administration stated.
The statement filed through S Manu, standing counsel for the Lakshadweep administration, further alleged that Media One, which aired the discussion, was not cooperating with the investigation, and information sought by the police through statutory notices was yet to be provided. ‘The investigation in this case is only in its preliminary stages. It can only be quashed in exceptional circumstances, and such special circumstances do not exist in this case,’ the administration stated.
A description of the facts surrounding the alleged misuse of the Covid pandemic by the Union government against the people of the Union territory of Lakshadweep is given by the administration as a justification for filing the case. Also, she compares it to the allegation that China has used the Covid virus as a bioweapon against other countries, which implies that the government of India has acted similarly against the people of Lakshadweep.
‘The untrue assertion by the petitioner in this regard is sufficient to incite hatred among the people of Lakshadweep against the government of India. It is prima facie a clear attempt to incite discontent towards the government of India,’ the administration said.
By resorting to violence, her statement tends to create disorder or disturb the public peace. Consequently, a case has been registered under Sections 124 A and 153B. Later, the administration noted, she clarified and justified her actions probably as an afterthought to avoid penal consequences. The criminal liability for the incident already completed will not be absolved by such actions, added the administration. There was also no evidence of imminent violence to sustain a criminal charge under section 124 A, as argued by the petitioner.