Does the burden of going to ten High Courts justify clubbing FIRs? Not for the Supreme Court, which has declined to Club FIRs Across States in a plea by Sri Siddhi Lakshmi Transport Company, saying that clubbing was for the police to appreciate.
New Delhi: A transport company that said it would otherwise have to approach ten different High Courts failed on Friday, October 16, to persuade the Supreme Court to club the First Information Reports registered against it in different States [Sri Siddhi Lakshmi Transport Company v. Union of India].
The Bench that heard the plea included Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who made the oral remarks on the request to club the cases.
“Its for the police to appreciate”
Turning down the argument that approaching ten High Courts would be a hardship, Justice Bagchi said:
“You can appear online in all the ten High Courts, get orders and then come here. But this is no ground to club FIRs..its for the police to appreciate and not us.”
He then offered counsel a lighter aside: “Professionally, it is very good for you”.
What the company asked for
Sri Siddhi Lakshmi Transport Company came to the Supreme Court asking that the FIRs lodged against it in several States be brought together in one place. The hearing did not disclose the nature of the allegations in those FIRs or the States involved. The allegations remain untested, the Court expressed no view on the merits, and the presumption of innocence applies.
Counsel for the company argued that, without clubbing, the petitioner would have to approach ten different High Courts for relief against the separate cases.
Clubbing, in law
Neither the old Code of Criminal Procedure nor the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 expressly provides for clubbing of FIRs. The Supreme Court has used its writ powers under Article 32 to transfer or club cases where several FIRs arise from the same act or occurrence, such as a single broadcast or social media post, so that an accused is not harassed by repeated prosecutions for the same incident.
The rule against a second FIR on the same transaction was laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001). Where the FIRs relate to separate incidents or separate complainants, courts have generally left each case to proceed on its own. On Friday, the Bench left it to the police to appreciate whether the cases overlap.
The Bench’s pointer to online appearance reflects the wider use of virtual hearings across High Courts, which the Court treated as an answer to the petitioner’s worry about litigating in several States.
Case Title: Sri Siddhi Lakshmi Transport Company v. Union of India
Bench: Bench including Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: October 16, 2026
Appearances: Counsel for the petitioner