Bhubaneswar: Close on the heels of Delhi High Court granting bail to student activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were detained under various sections of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for their alleged involvement in the Delhi riots case, it has come to the fore that a woman advocate from Odisha had also faced sedition charges but was acquitted due to lack of evidence.
Laws are primarily made to counter and prevent anti-national activities. However, both the Centre and various state governments use these very laws to their advantage to crush dissent.
Kalita, Narwal and Tanha were detained in May last year. However, the Delhi High Court granted them bail with the observation that the authorities must realise ‘the difference between terrorism and dissent’. Odisha’s advocate Pratima Das is also a similar case. “I was falsely implicated in two cases under various sections of IPC related to sedition charges and UAPA in 2008. Along with my family, I had to undergo severe mental trauma and humiliation after reports about my arrest appeared in the media. Police tried their very best to prove that I was a Maoist,” Pratima rued.
“However, they failed to produce any evidence and I was acquitted by the court in both the cases in 2010. But who will compensate me for the trauma and humiliation me and my family went through,” said Pratima, who has moved court against the Odisha government seeking compensation. The cases were lodged in Jagatsinghpur and Kuchinda in Sambalpur.
High Court lawyer Prasant Kumar Jena, said, “The police and political parties have been trampling upon basic rights of citizens through acts like UAPA, POTA or TADA. We don’t need any new stringent act as the existing laws are sufficient to deal with illegal activities. Many innocent tribals in Odisha booked under UAPA and sedition charges have been lodged in prisons across the state for years as getting bail in these cases is very tough.”
Advocate Manoj Mishra said, “In my opinion, Delhi High Court appears to be correct based on sound reasoning. The prosecutions ought to have collected more evidence to prove that in the garb of protest the accused were doing anti-national activities.”
Noted human rights activist Biswapriya Kanungo said, “The students and activists protesting against government policies and announcements are being termed as ‘anti-nationals’. Subsequently, the governments are implicating them in various cases under sedition charges. They are also being framed under stringent UAPA to stifle their voice of dissent.”
