News Updates

Student Booked For Sedition Over Slogans Supporting Sharjeel Imam Moves Bombay HC Seeking Anticipatory Bail

Nitish Kashyap
7 Feb 2020 3:15 PM GMT
Student Booked For Sedition Over Slogans Supporting Sharjeel Imam Moves Bombay HC Seeking Anticipatory Bail
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

Urvashi Chudawala, a 22-year-old Masters student at the prestigious Tata Institute of Social Sciences who was booked for sedition for allegedly raising slogans in support of JNU student Sharjeel Imam during a rally held for the LGBTQ community in South Mumbai on February 1, has moved the Bombay High Court seeking anticipatory bail after Additional Sessions Judge Prashant Rajvaidya refused to grant her any protection from arrest.

Urvashi's lawyer Vijay Hiremath mentioned the matter before Justice SK Shinde who ordered it to be listed for hearing on February 11.

On February 5, while hearing Urvashi's plea, Sessions Court observed-

"Her statement prima facie attracts the ingredients of the charges of sedition under section 124A of Indian Penal Code, which attracts life imprisonment. The case is of serious nature, custodial interrogation is required to reach the roots of the matter."

According to the prosecution, Urvashi shouted - "Sharjeel Tere Sapno Ko Hum Manzil Tak Pahuchaenge" (Sharjeel, we will realise your dreams).

In the case, where 50 others were booked for raising similar slogans, Urvashi is the main accused.

Activist Sharjeel Imam, a PhD student from JNU who did his Masters from IIT Mumbai, was arrested by Delhi police over his alleged inflammatory speeches during protests against CAA-NRC. He has been booked by five separate states for sedition.

Arguing before the Sessions Court, Hiremath had submitted- "There was only one line,which was said only once, has it done any harm? It was not aimed at public servants or government machinery, it is not sedition at all, It does not create hatred towards the government, or any community.

We may not agree with her statement but that does not amount to sedition?"

Next Story
Share it