In a most decisive, commendable and significant judgment titled Inayat Altaf Shekh And 3 Others v. State Of UP and Another in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 53115 of 2021 and cited in 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 147, the Allahabad High Court has minced just no words to underscore that the unity of India is not made of bamboo reeds that will bend to the passing winds of empty slogans, and that the foundations of our nation are more enduring. It must be mentioned here that the single Judge Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed thus while granting bail to 3 Kashmiri students who were arrested in October on sedition charges for allegedly raising pro-Pakistan slogans following Pakistan’s victory in a T20 Cricket World Cup match against India. We thus see that the Bench has thus granted bail to three students – Arsheed Yusuf, Inayat Altaf Sheikh and Showkat Ahmed Ganai who are all students of an engineering college in Agra and were arrested on October 27 by Agra police.
Needless to say, the applicants were compelled to move directly to the High Court with their bail plea and they did not move any application before the Agra Court as reportedly the lawyers association in Agra had refused to represent them. Along with the bail plea, the Kashmiri students had also moved an application seeking transfer of the trial of the case from Agra to Mathura Judgeship. In this regard, their application had averred thus: “…the right to get legal assistance as well as fair and impartial enquiry/investigation to such an accused as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the entire Bar of Agra Judgeship is not ready to appear on behalf of the applicants before the court and defend the case on their behalf by filing bail application, thus under such circumstances, the applicants have no other remedy except to seek transfer of their case.”
To start with, the single Judge Bench of Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Justice Ajay Bhanot sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in the introductory para of this learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment that, “A first information report was lodged as Case Crime No.675 of 2021 at Police Station Jagdishpura, District-Agra under Sections 153-A, 505(1)(b), 124A IPC. The applicant is in jail since 27.10.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.”
While stating the prosecution case, the Bench then points out in the next para that, “In brief the prosecution case set out in the F.I.R. states that the applicants had raised pro Pakistan slogans and also sloganeered against India in the aftermath of an Indo-Pak match. They also made like posts on social media and instigated civil disorder in the country.”
On the contrary, the Bench then discloses in the next para that, “Shri Ramesh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel assisted by Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel and Shri Sudhakar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants contend that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the instant case. The case is in fact the result of student rivalries over trivial issues. The applicants did not raise anti India and pro Pakistan slogans. The applicants are responsible Indian citizens who hail from the State of Jammu & Kashmir which is the very embodiment of Indian values. According to the learned counsel, the applicants truly represent Kashmiriyat defined by syncretist ideals and composite culture. These ideals also form the essence of Indian values diversely expressed in various parts of the country. The applicants are young students with a bright future. The trial is moving at a snail’s space and is not likely to conclude any time soon The inordinate delay in the trial will lead to indefinite detention of the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants do not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicants that the applicants shall not abscond and will cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.”Adding more to it, the Bench then reveals in the next para that, “Learned A.G.A. for the State reiterates the prosecution case stated in the F.I.R. He contends that the State has always welcomed students from all parts of the country with open arms but students cannot exhibit disloyalty to the country and spread disharmony in the society. On the basis of instructions, he does not contest the fact that the applicants do not have any criminal history apart from this case.”
Most significantly and also most remarkably, what forms the real soul of this extremely commendable judgment is then underscored by Hon’ble Justice Ajay Bhanot by holding unequivocally that, “The unity of India is not made of bamboo reeds which will bend to the passing winds of empty slogans. The foundations of our nation are more enduring. Eternal ideals bind the indestructible unity of India. Constitutional values create an indissoluble union of India. Every citizen of the country is the custodian, and the State is the sentinel of the unity of India and the constitutional values of the nation.”
No less significant is what is then stated by the Bench most elegantly that, “Students travelling freely to different parts of the country in the quest for knowledge is the true celebration of India’s diversity and a vivid manifestation of India's unity. It is the duty of the people of the hosting State to create enabling conditions for visiting scholars to learn and to live the constitutional values of our nation. It is also the obligation of the young scholars to imbibe and adhere to such values.”
Not stopping here, the Bench then further hastened to add in the next para that, “Constancy of Indian values and perpetuity of the Indian people led the poet Iqbal to sing aloud the glory of our motherland: “Kuch Baat Hain Ki Hasti Mitt Ti Nahin Hamari
Sadiyon Raha Hain Dushman, Daur-e-Jaman Hamara
Sare Jahan Se Accha, Hindustan Hamara.”
Most crucially, what comes as a note of advice for lawyers is then laid bare in the next para wherein it is held that, “The Court is entertaining the bail application directly. There are exceptional circumstances for doing so. It is informed that the Agra District Bar Association had passed a resolution for not providing any legal assistance to the applicants. The applicants were also assaulted in the District Court at Agra. The Court does not propose to enquire into this allegation at this stage since it is better to enlarge the applicants on bail and cut the controversy short. However, the Court feels that if the allegations are true, it is a matter of concern. Lawyers have an oath inscribed in their consciences to assist the cause of law under all circumstances and to serve justice to all those who seek it at all times.”
Going ahead, the Bench then finds no difficulty in holding that, “I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants. The submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants could not be satisfactorily disputed on behalf of the State. Accordingly, I hold that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.”
Still more, the Bench then also directs that, “In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.”
Quite remarkably, the Bench then directs in the next para that, “Let the applicants-Inayat Altaf Shekh, Shokat Ahmad Gani and Arsheed Yusuf in Case Crime No.675 of 2021 at Police Station-Jagdishpura, District-Agra under Sections 153-A, 505(1)(b), 124A IPC, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.(i) The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicants will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.”
Finally and on a closing note, the Bench then has no inhibition in holding clearly, categorically and convincingly that, “In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.”
All told, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment makes for compulsory reading by Judges, Lawyers, Intellectuals and others. It is made invariably clear in this extremely commendable, composed, cogent and creditworthy judgment that we as Indians are mature enough to not take too seriously such minor incidents as we saw in this leading case. Of course, this ruling also makes it distinctly clear that sedition should not be applied time and again at the drop of a hat!
To say the least, even my own best friend Sageer Khan had said way back in 1993 that, “Those who most loudly shot “Pakistan Zindabad”, “Pakistan Zindabad” if seriously asked to go to Pakistan will never go to Pakistan. I dare Centre to make a law in this regard. Not one Muslim from India will ever like to go to Pakistan because we all know what Pakistan really is. If still some want than why are they in India. They must leave India yet they don’t leave. This shows how much they love Pakistan! The founder of Pakistan named Mohammad Ali Jinnah was a Shia and we all know that terrorists attack and mercilessly kill Shia Muslims the most in Pakistan time and again unlike India where all are safe. Jinnah has done the worst injustice with his own Shias and played to the tunes of Britishers of stupidly, shamelessly and senselessly partitioning India on the most ridiculous ground of religion! Shias will keep paying the price in future also thanks to Jinnah! On the contrary, Muslims in India enjoy maximum liberties all over the world. Hindus were banned from indulging in polygamy in 1955 even though Dr BR Ambedkar in his Hindu Code Bill had recommended retention of polygamy and was to be a ground for divorce yet Hindus tolerated everything so quietly which really baffles me that how tolerant are Hindus. We, Muslims, on the other hand, are still enjoying polygamy due to which Hindus also convert to marry yet no PM has ever dared to abolish polygamy equally for all and not just for Hindus alone as Pandit Nehru did in 1955! We all know how Shias, Muslims from India called Mohajjirs in Pakistan and so also Muslims in Sind, Baluchistan, Karachi, PoK and other parts are treated. I predict no PM can ever complete full term in Pakistan as Army bulldozes everything and holds the key of power there! In India Army has no role except to help everyone which it has done with distinction since 1947 till now and will keep doing in future also!” It is a fact that even the incumbent PM Narendra Modi has also dared not abolish polygamy among all in India even though our Constitution in Article 14 talks about right to equality as a fundamental right!
So there can be just no gainsaying that we must all always strictly adhere to what Hon’ble Justice Ajay Bhanot of Allahabad High Court has held in this case, pay heed to what he has said so very commendably that, “The unity of India is not made of bamboo reeds which will bend to the passing winds of empty slogans. The foundations of our nation are more enduring. Eternal ideals bind the indestructible unity of India. Constitutional values create an indissoluble union of India. Every citizen of the country is the custodian, and the State is the sentinel of the unity of India and the constitutional values of the nation.” There is just no need to get perturbed time and again over slogans which are nothing but “empty rhetoric” as we see politicians also giving one slogan or the other repeatedly like creating more High Court Benches in UP which rarely see the light of the day! Sanjeev Sirohi