Today, On 29th April, Supreme Court refuses to cancel FIRs against two accused of praising Afzal Guru, criticising judges. However, it allowed all FIRs to be clubbed and transferred to a Madurai court for a joint trial.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court chose not to quash the First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against two members of the Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath (TNTJ) for alleged hate speech, during which they praised Afzal Guru, a convict in a parliament terror attack, and used derogatory language towards judges of the High Court and Supreme Court.
A bench consisting of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that the language used by the petitioners was highly objectionable and clearly met the criteria for hate speech.
However, the Court permitted the consolidation and transfer of multiple FIRs against the accused to a single court in Madurai for a joint trial.
The Court stated,
“At the outset, we must note that the language used by the petitioners in their speeches is highly objectionable and definitely discloses the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged. Hence, there is no scope for the exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India so as to quash the impugned FIRs…not for a moment, are we convinced by the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that the subsequent FIR should be quashed as the same tantamount to a second FIR on the same facts, but in any event, we feel that allowing multiple trials before Courts of different jurisdiction in reference to the speeches of the petitioners dated 17th March, 2022 is not expedient in the interest of justice and the trials deserve to be clubbed,”
The petitioners were charged with allegedly delivering an inflammatory speech during an unauthorized protest in Madurai. This speech not only praised Afzal Guru but also criticized various religious practices and targeted Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
Additionally, the speech included derogatory comments about the judiciary, particularly concerning the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in the Hijab case, which upheld an order barring hijabs (headscarves worn by Muslim women) in government educational institutions.
Following the speech, three FIRs were lodged against the accused, two in Tamil Nadu and one in Karnataka.
The petitioners approached the Supreme Court to challenge the registration of multiple FIRs for the same incident, arguing that such multiple prosecutions violated their fundamental right against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
They cited precedents like TT Antony v. State of Kerala, Arnab Goswami v. Union of India, and Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, asserting that filing multiple FIRs for the same speech constituted an abuse of process and was unconstitutional.
The State opposed the petition, arguing that the inflammatory nature of the speech had incited public unrest in various regions, thus justifying the registration of FIRs in each location where the speech had an impact.
Also Read: Delhi Riots 2020: HC to Hear Umar Khalid’s Bail Plea
After reviewing the arguments, the Court found the language of the speech to be highly objectionable. It also noted that allowing multiple prosecutions in different jurisdictions could lead to significant inconsistencies, resulting in conflicting decisions.
The Court remarked,
“It is not in dispute that the contents and language of the hate speech attributed to the petitioners are verbatim the same. Thus, we are of the view that allowing multiple prosecutions of the petitioners in different jurisdictions could lead to a serious anomaly with the possibility of conflicting decisions. Additionally, such a course of action would give rise to multiple trials for the same/similar set of allegations,”
Consequently, the Court ordered that all three FIRs be consolidated and transferred to an appropriate court in Madurai, Tamil Nadu, for a joint trial.
Advocates A Velan, Sma Jinnah, Navpreet Kaur, Prince Singh, and Nilay Rai represented the petitioners, while Senior Additional Advocate General V Krishnamurthy, along with advocates Sabarish Subramanian and D.L. Chidananda, appeared for the State.
Case Title: Rahamathulla vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
