Is the FIR maintainable in Law?
Is the FIR No.79/06 filed u/ss 124-A and 153-A of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) in Nawabad police station in Jammu, on 09.6.2006, against Shri Vinay Katiyar & Shri Sahib Singh Verma, maintainable in Law?
After the recent massacre of 30 Hindus in Doda, the State President of the BJP--accompanied by, inter alia, the senior party leader Shri Sahib Singh Verma, toured the affected areas. They found that the main grouse of the citizens there was:-
“Some of us have been inducted into the Village Defence Committees (VDCs, for short)—organised by the State Government, armed by the said Government and trained by the said Government. And obviously, we are expected to act as the first & proximate line of defence and use these arms when the terrorists (or such like persons) attack us or our property. This is also in consonance with, inter alia, ss. 76,79,80,81,94,96,97,98 (read with s.99),100,101, 102, 103,104, 105,106 etc of the I.P.C.
The para-military and military Forces are better trained than us, are paid by the Government to engage in similar work, and they are paid Insurance if they die in such action. On the other hand, there is no insurance-cover for us at all. Moreso, the employees of the said Forces are granted awards—like the Shaurya Chakra and accelerated promotions, we get no such incentive. However, in any battle-condition, it is the first line of defence (like us) which may suffer the heaviest number of casualties.”
Therefore, the State Unit of the BJP decided to meet the VDC’s reasonable & legitimate expectations in this regard in the broader National interest—moreso, it also announced that the said award will be given to every deserving citizen irrespective of his religious or political affiliation, and further that the same will be awarded only when the State Government confirms that the said act was done during a terrorist-attack (not even an attack by “such like persons”).
Thus, the said decision and its announcement is clearly an act in furtherance of the State’s own act to create & arm the VDCs—moreso, to uplift the VDCs’ sagging morale.
In that view of the facts & circumstances, the said decision and its announcement squarely falls within the ambit of, inter alia, the aforesaid sections of the IPC. Therefore, the FIR against the aforesaid two party-leaders is liable to be quashed; and Anticipatory Bail deserves to be granted to them, in the meanwhile.
Let us now look at s.153-A of the J & K Ranbir Penal Code. Its paragraph-heading says: “Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, language, etc, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.”
Apparently, the words ‘maintenance of harmony’ relate to harmony between two or more aforesaid groups.
Obviously, there are two groups—‘terrorists’ and ‘non-terrorists’. And probably the State Government wants both these groups to co-exist and maintain harmony between themselves—that is to say, the Government does not really wish to eliminate the ‘terrorist group’.
If that be not the case, then let the State Government spell out:-
i) does the word “groups” used in the said section mean legitimate (such as non-terrorists) as well as illegitimate (like terrorists) groups, or only the legitimate groups alone?
ii) who are the two Groups to which the FIR—which was registered under the State Government’s directions, relates?
ii) which of the “grounds” mentioned in the statute (s.153-A) does the FIR-in-question relate to-- religion, race, language or the omnibus ‘etc’?
S.124-A falls under the Chapter-heading ‘Offences against the State’ and paragraph-heading ‘sedition’. Can it be said, by any stretch of imagination, that an act done by a citizen in furtherance of the act of the State amounts to “waging a War against the State”—moreso, in view of Explanation-2 to the said section?