The Bombay High Court bench of Justices S S Shinde and M S Karnik on Tuesday said they failed to see the logic behind the use of the sedition law in the Kangana Ranaut case.

The bench asked public prosecutor (PP) Deepak Thakare how IPC section 124A would apply against the actor and her sister. “We can understand other sections, but we don’t understand why invoking section 124A, IPC. Please conduct a workshop for your officers. Not in this particular case, but for any case,’’ said the bench during a virtual hearing. The PP said the FIR was registered as per the magistrate’s order.

“If anyone doesn’t fall in line with the government, will (section 124A) be attracted?’’ “It has become routine that section 124A is added in complaints. For what? Are the citizens of this country being treated like this?!” asked Justice Shinde. He added, “It (sedition) is invoked as it is a serious offence…to stay court’s hands in quashing prayers.”

Advocate Rizwan Merchant, representing the complainant Sayyed, said, “Law on sedition needs to be laid down.” “Now even if you show disaffection and disapprobation, (they) can invoke 124A.”

Ranaut and her sister petitioned HC to quash an FIR and a magistrate’s order directing registration and investigation of the FIR on a complaint filed by a casting director, Munnawar Ali Sayyed. The FIR accused them of sedition, promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, and hurting religious sentiments with social media posts.

About comments on social media, Justice Shinde said free speech brings responsibilities with it. “Every citizen has fundamental rights. No doubt there is freedom of speech but no one can claim, ‘I have this absolute right’. To enjoy fundamental rights, the right to remain silent or for the other person to lead a peaceful life is also there…should not be violated. All citizens need to take care of this.”

Merchant said, “at least till court is seized with this matter” Ranaut and her sister “should not make online posts with relation to the FIR against them.” On instructions, Siddiquee assured the HC that they would not post any such statements.

The HC noted that Merchant vehemently opposed grant of interim protection, as did the prosecutor, but said that “ad interim protection, till matter is heard at length, deserves to be granted.”

Police have served Ranaut and her sister three summons so far. Bandra police sought their appearance first on October 26 and then on November 9. They sought time till November 15 saying they were busy with their brother's wedding in Himachal Pradesh. The next hearing is on January 11.