The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court refused to quash a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against an assistant professor working in a government college, who has been charged with allegedly trying to provoke citizens to use force against state institutions like the army, police, and administration.
A bench headed by Justice Sanjay Dhar examined a video submitted by the police, following which the court ruled that the professor, identified as Abdul Bari Naik, was purportedly trying to promote enmity between residents of Jammu and Kashmir and those living in other parts of India.
It also noted that the professor was purportedly sympathetic to those involved in terror and other unlawful activities.
Naik had been charged for allegedly motivating students in the college in which he teaches to take up arms against the administration and disrupt peace and tranquility in the area.
"Upon watching the video clips seized during the investigation of the case, it appears that the petitioner is conveying to the audience that Kashmiri students are being lynched and brutally tortured in other parts of the country," the bench observed, as per LiveLaw.
It also noted that in one of the video clips, Naik seems to be telling people that the Indian Army was "hampering" the movement of people and "obstructing" children from going to schools, leading to their closure.
"In yet another video clip, the petitioner is seen pleading cause relating to release of a person who was in custody for indulging in stone pelting and terror activities," the court said.
'Case Filed Because of Work as an RTI Activist': Naik
Refuting the claims, the professor said that the authorities had filed a case against him because he is a Right to Information (RTI) activist and raises issues like corruption.
He also submitted that at best, his actions could amount to a violation of Civil Service Rules, but not a criminal offence.
However, the court refused to quash the First Information Report (FIR), saying, "Quashing the proceedings in the instant case would amount to stifling a genuine prosecution which is impermissible in law."
(With inputs from LiveLaw.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)