Supreme Court refuses to quash FIRs against two for praising Afzal Guru, slamming judges

The Supreme Court recently declined to quash the First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged against two members of the Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath (TNTJ) for their alleged hate speech in which they had praised parliament terror attack convict Afzal Guru and used unparliamentary language against judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court [Rahamathulla vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.]..A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the language used by the petitioners in their speeches was highly objectionable and clearly contained the essential ingredients of the hate speech.However, the Court allowed the consolidation and transfer of multiple FIRs filed against the accused to a single court in Madurai for joint trial."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 tantamounts 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 Court said. .The petitioners were booked for allegedly delivering an inflammatory speech during a protest organized without permission in Madurai. The speech allegedly praised Afzal Guru and criticized various religious practices and also slammed Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. It also contained derogatory remarks against the judiciary, particularly in the context of the Karnataka High Court's verdict in the Hijab case, which upheld an order of Karnataka government to disallow hijab (headscarves worn by Muslim women) in government educational institutions.Following this speech, three FIRs were filed against the accused, two in Tamil Nadu and one in Karnataka..The petitioners approached the Supreme Court against the registration of multiple FIRs for the same incident. They contended that such multiple prosecutions violated their fundamental right against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.Petitioners relied on precedents including TT Antony v. State of Kerala, Arnab Goswami v. Union of India, and Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, contending that registering multiple FIRs for the same speech amounted to abuse of process and was unconstitutional.The State opposed the plea, arguing that the inflammatory nature of the speech caused public unrest in different regions, justifying registration of FIRs in each location where the speech had impact.After considering the submissions, the Court found the language used in the speech to be highly objectionable.However, the Court observed that allowing multiple prosecutions of the petitioners across different jurisdictions could result in a serious anomaly, with the potential for conflicting decisions. "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," Court said.Accordingly, Court directed that all three FIRs be consolidated and transferred to a competent court in Tamil Nadu's Madurai for a joint trial..Advocates A Velan, Sma Jinnah, Navpreet Kaur, Prince Singh and Nilay Rai appeared for the petitioners.Senior Additional Advocate General V Krishnamurthy along with advocates Sabarish Subramanian and DL Chidananda appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]