1. Multiple FIRs registered in different jurisdictions for the same hate speech delivered at a public meeting — Petition under Article 32 for clubbing of cases. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1563
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH AND SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Rahamathulla – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Tamil Nadu And Others – Respondent
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 132 of 2022 with Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 189 of 2022
Decided on : 22-04-2025
Important Points
To avoid conflicting decisions and multiplicity of proceedings, multiple FIRs arising from the same verbatim hate speech delivered in one location should be clubbed and transferred to a single competent jurisdiction for joint trial, exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Subject
Criminal Law - Hate Speech and FIR Consolidation
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.32, Art.20(2), Art.142
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.162
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.153(a), S.505(1)(b), S.506(1), S.109, S.504
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.162
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.153(a), S.505(1)(b), S.506(1), S.109, S.504
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Right against double jeopardy - Writ petitions seeking transfer and clubbing of multiple FIRs for the same hate speech - Court ruled that while FIRs emanate from the same speech, allowing multiple prosecutions could lead to conflicting decisions - Joint trials deemed expedient in the interest of justice. (Paras 10, 15, 16, 17)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Article 142 - Transfer of trials - The Supreme Court directed transfer of FIRs to a single competent jurisdiction for consolidated trials, emphasizing the importance of judicial efficiency. (Paras 17, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellants sought clubbing of FIRs alleging hate speech made during a public address on 17th March 2022. The speech included inflammatory remarks against various religious practices and figures.
Findings of Court:
Multiple FIRs arising from identical facts should be jointly tried to prevent judicial duplication and conflicts, ensuring the interest of justice.
Issues: Whether multiple FIRs can be registered for the same set of allegations without violating Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that simultaneous trials in different jurisdictions for the same speech are impractical and may lead to anomalous outcomes, hence should be clubbed.
Result: Writ petitions allowed and FIRs transferred for joint trials.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Article 142 - Transfer of trials - The Supreme Court directed transfer of FIRs to a single competent jurisdiction for consolidated trials, emphasizing the importance of judicial efficiency. (Paras 17, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellants sought clubbing of FIRs alleging hate speech made during a public address on 17th March 2022. The speech included inflammatory remarks against various religious practices and figures.
Findings of Court:
Multiple FIRs arising from identical facts should be jointly tried to prevent judicial duplication and conflicts, ensuring the interest of justice.
Issues: Whether multiple FIRs can be registered for the same set of allegations without violating Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that simultaneous trials in different jurisdictions for the same speech are impractical and may lead to anomalous outcomes, hence should be clubbed.
Result: Writ petitions allowed and FIRs transferred for joint trials.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege multiple FIRs for same facts violate Article 20(2) — Respondents contend each location where speech is heard creates a fresh cause of action. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. Speech contents disclose alleged offences, precluding quashing; however, multiple trials for verbatim same speech may cause conflicting decisions and anomalies. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. Multiplicity of proceedings for the same set of allegations arising from a single speech does not serve public interest and warrants clubbing of trials. (Para 17 )
5. FIRs from different jurisdictions transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction where the speech was delivered for joint trial. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
6. Can multiple FIRs be registered for a single speech delivered in one location but heard in others?
While the State may argue that each communication creates a fresh cause of action, the Court found that allowing multiple prosecutions for verbatim same speech can lead to conflicting decisions and anomalies. (Para 12 , 13 , 16 , 17 )
7. Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court club multiple FIRs registered in different states?
When FIRs emanate from the same set of allegations and verbatim speech, the Court may exercise powers under Article 142 to transfer cases to a single jurisdiction to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. (Para 17 , 19 )
8. What is the criteria for determining the jurisdiction for a joint trial of multiple FIRs arising from one speech?
The Court may direct the trial to be conducted in the jurisdiction where the speech was actually delivered to ensure the interest of justice. (Para 18 , 19 )
ORDER :
1. Heard.
2. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for clubbing of the multiple FIRs/criminal cases registered against the petitioners arising from the same set of facts and allegations.
3. The petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 132 of 2022 seeks transfer of FIR No. 18 of 2022 registered at Vidhana Soudha Police Station, Bangalore City, Karnataka to Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai City, Tamil Nadu where another FIR bearing No. 223 of 2022 was registered in respect of the speech given by the petitioner on 17th March, 2022.
4. On the other hand, the petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 189 of 2022 seeks transfer of FIR No. 18 of 2022 registered at Vidhana Soudha Police Station, Bangalore City, Karnataka to Adiramapattinam Police Station, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu where another FIR bearing No. 189 of 2022 was registered in respect of the speech given by the petitioner on 17th March, 2022.
5. The factual matrix relevant for disposal of the writ petitions can be encompassed in a nutshell as below.
6. The petitioners herein being members of Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath made a public address in a protest/meeting held within the jurisdiction of the Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai City on 17th March, 2022. It is alleged that the said meeting was convened without seeking any permission. The speeches which the petitioners made were inflammatory and tantamounted 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 made on the Indian Parliament. They also made remarks against the legal issues considered in the Ayodhya Ram Temple Judgment; the dress being worn by Hon'ble 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 of India 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. The speech incited hatred amongst the people as well as society at large. It is alleged that the petitioners spoke in a manner that created fear and also generated perception of life threat to the Judges.
7. Based on the above hate speech, Mr. Shanmuganathan, Sub-Inspector of Police, posted at Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai City, Tamil Nadu lodged a complaint at the said police station on which an FIR No. 223 of 2022 under Sections 153A, 505(1)(b), 505(1)(c), 505(2), 506(1) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860[For short, "IPC".] read with Section 109 IPC, came to be registered on 18th March, 2022 against the petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 132 of 2022.
8. On the same day, FIR No. 189 of 2022 came to be registered on 18th March, 2022 at Adiramapattinam Police Station, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu under Sections 153 , 153A, 504, 505(1)(b), and 505(2) of IPC against the petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 189 of 2022.
9. A third FIR bearing Crime No. 18 of 2022 referring to the very same speech of the petitioners, came to be registered on 19th March, 2022 at the Vidhana Soudha Police Station, Bangalore City, Karnataka at the instance of one Sudha Katwa, a law practitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 506(1), 505(1)(c), 505(1)(B), 153A, 109, 504, and 505(2) IPC against both the petitioners.
10. The petitioners have filed the writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of
