BJP used sedition law to suppress voices against its govt: AAP MP

AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh on Wednesday welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to put on hold the sedition law and alleged that the BJP was using it to suppress those raising voice against its government.

Taking to Twitter, Singh, who is also the party spokesperson, claimed that the sedition law was "misused" against him also in Uttar Pradesh.

Putting on hold the sedition law, the apex court earlier in the day stayed the registration of the FIRs, ongoing probes and coercive measures on the matter across the country until an "appropriate forum" of the government re-examines the colonial era penal law.

Also Read | From Disha Ravi to Arundhati, Supreme Court sedition law stay to impact several high-profile cases

"The SC's decision is welcome," Singh said in a tweet in Hindi.

"Whosoever tries to raise voice against the BJP government, the BJP brings false cases to suppress such person. This law was misused against me also in Uttar Pradesh," the senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader charged.

"The BJP saves the real goons. Instead of saving the law, the BJP is engaged in saving loafers and goons," he added.

In September 2020, the Uttar Pradesh Police had lodged an FIR against Singh under various sections of the IPC, including 501A (printing or engraving matter knowing it to be defamatory), 120 (a) (conspiracy) and IT Act at Hazratganj police station, for undertaking a survey.

Also Read | SC sedition order must be viewed in context of govt's positive suggestions: BJP

A sedition charge under 124 (A) of IPC was also included in the notice that the Lucknow police sent to the AAP MP seeking him to appear before the investigation officer of the case "to present facts and evidence".

Singh claimed that the sedition case was filed against him in UP after he had exposed the corruption and scams taking place under the Yogi Adityanath government.

In its significant order on the law that has been under intense public scrutiny, a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said there was need to balance the interest of civil liberties and interests of citizens with that of the state.

Taking note of the concerns of the Centre, the apex court said the “rigours of Section 124A (sedition) of the IPC is not in tune with the current social milieu” and permitted reconsideration of the provision.