The bench made note of the averments in the multiple FIRs lodged against them in Bengaluru, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu’s Thanjavur and Madurai cities.”The petitioners spoke praising Afzal Guru, a terrorist who was the mastermind behind the attack on the Indian Parliament. They also made remarks against the legal issues considered in the Ayodhya Ram Temple judgment; the dress being worn by Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh; the festivals being celebrated by Christians; the practice of Hindus in applying holy-ash to their bodies; the religious practice followed by the Sikhs keeping a sword with them and tried to link the same with the Hijab being worn by Muslim women,” the bench said.The bench observed the duo also condemned the verdict of the Karnataka High Court in the Hijab case.It came on record that based on the “hate speech”, a sub-inspector posted at Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai City filed a complaint following which an FIR was registered on March 18, 2022 for “promoting enmity between two groups, inciting any community to commit offence against another group and other offences”.Similar FIR was lodged in Thanjavur on the same day.Another FIR was registered on March 19, 2022 at the Vidhana Soudha Police Station, Bengaluru on a complaint by a law practitioner.Both Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath members moved the top court for clubbing of the two Tamil Nadu FIRs and quashing of the Bengaluru FIR.They argued it was impermissible in law to register multiple FIRs for the same allegations and offences as it would be double jeopardy and violation of rights guaranteed by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.The counsel for Tamil Nadu and Karnataka opposed the submissions while referring to the inflammatory nature of their alleged hate speech and said sentiments of people at Madurai and Bengaluru were hurt.Though the FIRs registered in both states stemmed from same hate speech, the bench said the only justification given was that the complainants heard the hate speech at their respective locations.The bench, however, said 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 or similar set of allegations.”Not for a moment, are we convinced by the submission advanced by 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 March 17, 2022 is not expedient in the interest of justice and the trials deserve to be clubbed,” it held.The court observed the purported hate speech was delivered within the jurisdiction of Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai City, Tamil Nadu, and it would be in the interest of justice that trial was conducted by a local court.Exercising its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the top court directed the FIRs at Bengaluru and Thanjavur to be transferred to Madurai for joint trials by clubbing the three FIRs.
Source link
