Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
AMISH DEVGAN – PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – RESPONDENT(S)
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 160 OF 2020
Decided on : 07-12-2020
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 32 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 162,186 and 179 - Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 - Journalist - Religious - Prohibits conversion - Challenged - Petitioner hosts and anchors debate shows Aar Paar on News18 India and Takkar on CNBC Awaaz - At around 7:30 p.m., petitioner had hosted and anchored a debate on enactment[1][The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991] which, while excluding Ayodhya, prohibits conversion and provides for maintenance of religious character of places of worship as it existed - Some Hindu priest organisations had challenged vires of this Act before Supreme Court, and reportedly a Muslim organization had filed a petition opposing challenge - Petitioner, as per writ petition, claims that post telecast he was abused and given death threats on his phone, Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms - Fearing for his life and limb, petitioner had filed FIR No. dated at P.S. Sector-20, Uttar Pradesh, and submitted links to threats received through social media platforms - Whether an act, which amounts to an offence, is trivial would undoubtedly depend upon evidence collated in relation to injury or harm suffered, knowledge or intention with which offending act was done, and other related circumstances – Held, Court would also like to clarify that Section 179 of Criminal Code permits prosecution of cases in court within whose local jurisdiction offence has been committed or consequences have ensued - Section 186 of Criminal Code relates to cases where two separate charge-sheets have been filed on basis of separate FIRs and postulates that prosecution would proceed where first charge-sheet has been filed on basis of FIR that is first in point of time - In such cases ordinarily first FIR, that is, FIR registered first in point of time, should be treated as main FIR and others as statements under Section 162 of Criminal Code – Court do not find any good ground or special reason to transfer FIRs, Uttar Pradesh - Statement of complaint/informant forming basis of transferred FIRs would be considered as statement under Section 162 of Criminal Code and be proceeded with - Compliance of above directions to transfer papers would be made by concerned police station within four weeks when they receive a copy of this order - Above directions would equally apply to any other FIR/complaint predicated on same telecast/ episode - Writ petition and all pending applications are, accordingly, disposed of.
Key Points: - The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction under Section 179 of the CrPC extends to any place where the act was done or its consequences ensued, meaning a broadcast offence can be tried in any state where the audience was located. (!) (!) (!) - The Court clarified that criminal provisions like Sections 153A, 295A, and 505(2) require a deliberate and malicious intent to promote enmity or outrage religious feelings, and mere offensive speech or discussion does not constitute an offence without a proximate nexus to public disorder. (!) (!) (!) - The Court directed that subsequent FIRs registered for the same incident must be treated as statements under Section 162 of the CrPC and transferred to the location of the first FIR, unless there is a counter-case or specific good reason. (!) (!) (!) - The Court declined to quash the FIRs at the initial stage as the facts regarding intent and harm are disputed and require full investigation, but granted interim protection against arrest. (!) (!) (!) - The Court emphasized that the "reasonable man" test (Clapham omnibus) must be applied to evaluate the content, context, and intent of the speech, considering the speaker's influence. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment affirmed that the exercise of inherent power to quash proceedings under Article 32 or Section 482 CrPC is exceptional and should not bypass the regular investigative machinery unless there is an abuse of process. (!) (!) - The Court interpreted "public order" and "public tranquillity" in the context of hate speech to mean a breach of peace endangering the security of the State or society, not minor local disturbances. (!) (!) - The Court noted that the defence of "trifle" under Section 95 of the IPC cannot be accepted at the pre-investigation stage when facts and evidence are disputed. (!) - The Court ordered the transfer of all pending FIRs related to the telecast to the police station in Ajmer, Rajasthan, where the first FIR was registered. (!) - The Court directed the relevant States to examine the threat perception for the petitioner and his family and take necessary security steps. (!)
JUDGMENT
Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Applications for intervention are allowed.
2. The writ petitioner, Amish Devgan, is a journalist who, it is stated, is presently the managing director of several news channels owned and operated by TV18 Broadcast Limited, including News18 Uttar Pradesh/Uttarakhand, News18 Madhya Pradesh/ Chhattisgarh and News18 Rajasthan.
3. The petitioner hosts and anchors debate shows 'Aar Paar' on News18 India and 'Takkar' on CNBC Awaaz. On 15th June, 2020, at around 7:30 p.m., the petitioner had hosted and anchored a debate on the enactment[1][The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991] which, while excluding Ayodhya, prohibits conversion and provides for maintenance of the religious character of places of worship as it existed on 15th August, 1947. Some Hindu priest organisations had challenged vires of this Act before the Supreme Court, and reportedly a Muslim organization had filed a petition opposing the challenge.
4. Post the telecast as many as seven First Information Reports (FIRs) concerning the episode were filed and registered against the petitioner in the States of Rajasthan, Telangana, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. The details of the FIRs are as under:
| S.No. | FIR No. | Sections | Police Station / State |
| 1. | 78/2020 | 153B, 295A, 298 IPC 66F of Information Technology Act, 2000 | Dargah, Ajmer (Rajasthan) |
| 2. | 50/2020 | 153B, 295A, 298 IPC 66F of Information Technology Act, 2000 | Makbara, Kota (Rajasthan) |
| 3. | 173/2020 | 295AIPC | Bahadurpura, Hyderabad City (Telangana) |
| 4. | 218/2020 | 295AIPC | Itwara, Nanded (Maharashtra) |
| 5. | 217/2020 | 153A, 295A, 505(2) IPC | Paidhuni, Mumbai (Maharashtra) |
| 6. | 674/2020 | 295AIPC | Originally registered at PS. Omati, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) and subsequently on 30th June 2020 was transferred to PS., Sector-20, Gautam Buddh Nagar (Uttar Pradesh) |
| 7. | 337/2020 | 295AIPC | Naya Nagar, Thane (Maharashtra) |
The gist of the FIRs is almost identical. The petitioner, while hosting the debate, had described Pir Hazrat Moinuddin Chishti, also known as Pir Hazrat Khwaja Gareeb Nawaz, as "aakrantak Chishti ay a... aakrantak Chishti ay a... lootera Chishti ay a... uske baad dharam badle". Translated in English the words spoken would read - "Terrorist Chishti came. Terrorist Chishti came. Robber Chishti came - thereafter the religion changed," imputing that 'the Pir Hazrat Moinuddin Chishti, a terrorist and robber, had by fear and intimidation coerced Hindus to embrace Islam.' It is alleged that the petitioner had deliberately and intentionally insulted a Pir or a pious saint belonging to the Muslim community, revered even by Hindus, and thereby hurt and incited religious hatred towards Muslims.
5. The petitioner, as per the writ petition, claims that post the telecast he was abused and given death threats on his phone, Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms. Fearing for his life and limb, the petitioner had filed FIR No. 539 of 2020 dated 20th June, 2020 at P.S. Sector-20, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, and submitted the links to the threats received through social media platforms.
6. On or about 22nd June, 2020, the present writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India with an application for interim relief. This writ petition came up for hearing on 26th June, 2020 whereby notice was issued with a direction to the petitioner to implead the informants in the respective FIRs/complaints. An interim order was passed directing that till the next date of hearing there would be a stay on further steps/action on the FIRs mentioned in the writ petition, relating to the telecast dated 15th June, 2020, and the petitioner was protected against any coercive process arising out of or relating to the said FIRs.
7. Pursuant to the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition was amended to implead the complainants. Th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
