The Supreme Court Tuesday refused to quash an FIR lodged against two Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath members for their alleged hate speech in which they praised Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, but clubbed the three FIRs filed against them and directed that they be tried jointly in Madurai where they allegedly made the objectionable remarks.
Three FIRs were registered in the case — at Madurai and Thanjavur in and in Karnataka.
The Thowheed Jamath members had moved the top court for clubbing of the two Tamil Nadu FIRs and quashing of the Bengaluru FIR.
In its judgment, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted 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,” the bench said.
It, however, refused to quash the subsequent FIR.
“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.
According to the prosecution case, the protest in which the duo delivered the alleged hate speech within the jurisdiction of the Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai, on March 17, 2022, was convened without seeking police permission.
According to police, their speeches were inflammatory and tantamount to hate speech, with the potential to incite hatred, violence, and riots amongst the people in the name of religion.
“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 petitioners also condemned the verdict given by the Karnataka High Court in the Hijab case and used unparliamentary language towards the judges of the Supreme Court as well as the high courts. It is alleged that the language used by the petitioners in the public address was unparliamentary and tended to undermine the dignity, honour and sanctity of the judiciary. It also had a propensity to undermine the democratic functioning of the Government of India. It is alleged that the petitioners spoke in a manner that created fear and also generated perception of life threat to the judges,” the SC order said, citing the prosecution case.
“The language used by the petitioners in their speeches is highly objectionable and definitely discloses the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged,” the SC said.
