1. Multiple FIRs registered across several states under BNS, IPC, and IT Act regarding social media posts — Petition for consolidation of FIRs and protection from coercive action. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1003
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.V. VISWANATHAN, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Wazahat Khan – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 247 of 2025
Decided On : 23-06-2025
Important Points
The court prioritizes the need to assess the legitimacy of FIRs filed against the petitioner, allowing for interim protection while addressing the issue of potential retaliatory motives.
Subject
Criminal Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
BNS: S.196(1)(a), S.299, S.352, S.298, S.302, S.152, S.79, S.121(2), S.192, S.197(1)(c), S.353(2)
IPC: S.196(1)(a), S.299, S.352, S.353(1)(c)
IT Act: S.66A, S.67
IPC: S.196(1)(a), S.299, S.352, S.353(1)(c)
IT Act: S.66A, S.67
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 196, 299, 352, 353; Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 67 - Writ Petition seeking to prevent cognizance of FIRs and complaints arising from tweets - Petitioner alleges retaliation for social media activity - Court grants interim relief from coercive action regarding FIRs pending further hearing. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Writ of Mandamus - Issuance of a writ to bar legal action against the petitioner is sought.
(C) Consolidation of FIRs - Petitioner seeks transfer of cases for a unified investigation.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner faces multiple FIRs across six states regarding tweets perceived as objectionable towards a particular faith, asserting those tweets were retaliatory following prior complaints against another social media influencer.
Findings of Court:
Court grants an ad-interim relief, halting coercive measures against the petitioner until the next hearing.
Issues: The primary issues include the legitimacy of FIRs filed against the petitioner and potential retaliatory motives behind these filings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the importance of considering the circumstances surrounding the tweets and acknowledges the establishment of previous judgments favoring consolidation of cases within a single jurisdiction.
Result: No coercive action against the petitioner until the next hearing date.
(B) Writ of Mandamus - Issuance of a writ to bar legal action against the petitioner is sought.
(C) Consolidation of FIRs - Petitioner seeks transfer of cases for a unified investigation.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner faces multiple FIRs across six states regarding tweets perceived as objectionable towards a particular faith, asserting those tweets were retaliatory following prior complaints against another social media influencer.
Findings of Court:
Court grants an ad-interim relief, halting coercive measures against the petitioner until the next hearing.
Issues: The primary issues include the legitimacy of FIRs filed against the petitioner and potential retaliatory motives behind these filings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the importance of considering the circumstances surrounding the tweets and acknowledges the establishment of previous judgments favoring consolidation of cases within a single jurisdiction.
Result: No coercive action against the petitioner until the next hearing date.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sankhajit Lal Mitra, Adv. Mr. Avro Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Ishita Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sankhajit Lal Mitra, Adv. Mr. Avro Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Ishita Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR.
Table of Contents
2. FIRs are retaliatory and based on deleted tweets — Request for consolidation of multiple FIRs across states and interim protection from coercive action. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 7 )
3. The court considered the petitioner's current custody and the existence of multiple FIRs across various states regarding similar allegations. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. Ad-interim protection from coercive action may be granted in cases involving multiple FIRs of a similar nature pending further adjudication. (Para 8 )
5. Notice issued to respondents and ad-interim direction that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner in the mentioned or similar FIRs. (Para 5 , 8 )
6. Can the court grant interim protection against coercive action in multiple FIRs of a similar nature?
Yes, the court may grant ad-interim relief directing that no coercive action be taken against a petitioner in relation to specific FIRs or any future FIRs registered based on similar allegations. (Para 8 )
7. What remedies can be sought when multiple FIRs are registered across different states for the same cause of action?
A petitioner may seek a writ of mandamus to prevent cognizance, a writ of prohibition against coercive steps, or the consolidation and transfer of all related FIRs to a neutral state. (Para 1 )
ORDER :
1. We have heard Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Learned senior counsel draws attention to the prayer clause at page 64 of the Writ Petition and submits that he is pressing prayers b, c, d and e. He expressly gives up prayers a and f. Prayers b, c, d and e read as follows:
“(b) Issue a writ of mandamus to the effect that no cognizance of any complaint would be taken by any court nor any FIR registered by the police on the cause of action in the present Writ Petition.
(c) Alternatively, consolidate all various complains/ FIRs arising out of the petitioner’s Tweets in social media registered/made at the behest of the State Administration, CM, Political parties, Hindu Sangathan/organization or activists and highly connected supporters of ruling political dispensations and other high profile political people, along with public and transfer to a neutral State for completion of investigation.
(d) Issue a writ of prohibition from taking any coercive steps in relation to FIRs (as mentioned in prayer a) registered on the tweets in question;
(e) Grant bail and interim protection to the petitioner in respect of the FIRs (as mentioned in prayer a) wherein the petitioner has been arrested.”
2. Learned senior counsel submits that the First Information reports filed are in retaliation to the complaint filed against a social media influencer, who was arrested and has since been released on bail. To quote Mr. Naidu’s own words “he was perhaps reaping what he has sown”. Be that as it may. According to the learned senior counsel, at present following are the known First Information Reports/complaints registered against the petitioner for certain old tweets made by him:
“(i) Kolkata FIR: Golfgreen PS Case No. 76 dated 02.06.2025 u/s Section 196(1)(a)/ 299/ 352/ 352(1)(c) of the BNS.
(ii) Kolkata FIR: Complaint at Kolkata's Garden Reach Police Station by Sh. Ram Swabhiman Parishad u/s Section 196(1)(a), Section 299, Section 352, Section 353(1)(c) IPC r/w Sections 66A and 67 of the IT Act.
(iii) Assam FIR – Panbazar Cyber PS Case No. 08/25 u/s 196(2)/ 298/ 299/ 302/ 152/ 79/ 121(2) BNS r/w 67 IT Act, 2000.
(iv) Haryana FIR: PS Cyber West, Gurugram; FIR No. 202 dated 02.06.2025 under section 152/ 192/ 196(1)(b)/ 197(1)(c)/ 197(1)(d)/ 299/ 352/ 353(2) of BNS and 67 of IT Act.
(v) Delhi FIR: Two criminal complaints were lodged in New Delhi for communal provocation aimed at disturbing social harmony.
(vi) Delhi Complaint: Another complaint has been filed in Delhi by Advocate Vineet Jindal with the Delhi Police.
(vii) Mumbai FIR: An FIR has been registered at the LT Marg Police Station, Mumbai against Wazahat Khan, based on a complaint filed by Ramesh Solanki, who is IT cell president for monitoring objectionable content on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and WhatsApp. According to police, Solanki reported that on December 13, 2023, Wazahat Khan, using his Twitter handle @rashidiwazahat, posted objectionable and obscene content targeting the Hindu faith and gods.”
3. The earliest FIRs, as per the knowledge of the petitioner, is at Golf Green PS Case No. 76, dated 02.06.2025 and Garden Reach PS FIR No. 170, dated 16.06.2025. Learned senior counsel also draws attention to page no. 164 of the paperbook, which, according to him, is the transcript of the apology video message given by the petitioner. In short, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that his tweets were retaliatory tweets, at the relevant time.
4. Learned senior counsel also submits that the tweets have been deleted. He further submits that the FIRs span over six States. He cites a number of previous judgments/orders of this Court, wherein orders to consolidate the FIR within one State or multiple FIRs of the State concerned in the said State have been made.
5. Issue notice, returnable on 14.07.2025.
6. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to serve the Standing Counsel for the States of Assam, West Bengal, Maharashtra, NCT of Delhi, H
