Back
Over Same Incident : Actress Sreelekha Mitra Tells
Actress Sreelekha Mitra has approached the seeking the of multiple registered against her across West Bengal for allegedly holding an objectionable placard depicting Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a protest rally on . The petition, filed under , contends that the criminal proceedings arise from a single incident and amount to an abuse of the criminal process. Mitra argues that the multiplicity of FIRs, all stemming from the same photograph, has rendered her professional and personal life impossible to conduct and has a direct on her .
Background: The Protest and the Placard
The writ petition details that Mitra participated in a peaceful demonstration organised by students and civil society members protesting alleged irregularities in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) and demanding transparency in public education. The march commenced from Sealdah and proceeded towards Dharmatala, drawing students, teachers, artists, and members of the public. During the commotion that followed police intervention, Mitra claims she was “momentarily handed a placard” containing a satirical political cartoon allegedly depicting the Prime Minister. She has specifically denied authoring, designing, commissioning, printing, publishing, or circulating the cartoon.
According to the petition, “Owing to the prevailing confusion, the petitioner, without going through the contents thereof, momentarily held the said placard.” A photograph of Mitra holding the placard was subsequently circulated widely on social media, and the entire criminal process initiated against her stems from that single photograph. Mitra also relies on a public clarification she issued, in which she stated that she participated in support of the students’ movement and had no intention of insulting any constitutional authority or public functionary, expressing regret over the incident.
The Coordinated Social Media Campaign
Soon after the photograph went viral, the petition alleges a coordinated social media campaign began, calling upon political workers to lodge criminal complaints against Mitra at different police stations across West Bengal. The petition refers to several social media posts announcing the filing of complaints. One such post stated that two complaints had been lodged by the , at Netaji Nagar and Jadavpur Police Stations. Another publication claimed that more than 53 FIRs had already been lodged against Mitra and that the number would continue to increase.
One of the FIRs, registered at as Case No. 197/2026 dated , invoked . A complaint forming part of the petition alleges that Mitra, by using the poster in a Facebook post, had “instigated people towards violence against Constitutional authorities and elected government” and had also instigated personal violence against the Prime Minister.
Legal Contentions: and Violation of Rights
Mitra’s primary legal argument is that the alleged occurrence is singular, and different police stations cannot initiate parallel criminal proceedings based on the same photograph and the same alleged act. The petition asserts that repeated notices under , requiring her to appear before different investigating agencies, have made compliance practically impossible. She has nevertheless cooperated with the investigations and, in several cases, sought copies of the complaints and FIRs before appearing.
The actress also challenges the invocation of Sections 352 and 353(2) BNS, arguing that the allegations do not satisfy the ingredients of the offences. The petition states: “There is no allegation whatsoever that the petitioner committed any act of violence, assaulted or threatened any individual, obstructed any public servant in discharge of official duties, instigated commission of any offence, incited imminent violence, promoted public disorder or committed any overt act capable of attracting the penal provisions invoked.” Similarly, she questions the subsequent addition of Section 356(3) BNS in some FIRs, contending that no additional factual allegation or subsequent development justified the different penal provisions being invoked in relation to the same incident.
The and
The petition heavily relies on the well-settled principle that arising from the same occurrence are impermissible. Courts have consistently held that registering for the same incident amounts to an and violates the of the accused under () and (). The has, in several judgments, deprecated the practice of lodging on the same set of facts, observing that it leads to harassment and duplicative investigations. Mitra’s petition invokes this principle to argue that the coordinated filing of over 50 FIRs across different police stations is a clear attempt to harass and intimidate her.
on Free Speech and Political Expression
The petition further contends that the repeated criminal proceedings have a “direct ” on Mitra’s right to participate in peaceful political expression and public discourse under Articles 19(1)(a) () and 19(1)(b) () of the . The argument is that even if the placard contained a satirical cartoon, the criminal process itself has become a form of punishment, deterring citizens from exercising their constitutional rights. The petition states: “The repeated institution of substantially identical criminal proceedings, the requirement of repeated appearances before different police stations located across the State… have rendered the petitioner’s ordinary professional and personal life impossible to conduct with any degree of certainty.”
Relief Sought
Mitra has sought of all FIRs, complaints, General Diary entries, and proceedings arising from the incident. In the alternative, she has prayed for directions to consolidate and transfer all proceedings to one designated investigating agency or police station, with other complaints being treated only as information forming part of a single investigation. She also seeks cancellation of the notices issued under Sections 35(3) and 94 BNSS, an interim direction restraining coercive action against her, and a direction requiring the State to produce a complete consolidated list of all FIRs and complaints registered against her concerning the incident.
Implications for Legal Practice
This case underscores a recurring issue in Indian criminal jurisprudence: the misuse of the FIR mechanism to harass individuals through multiple proceedings. For legal practitioners, the petition highlights the importance of promptly invoking the of the High Court under Article 226 (or ) to consolidate or quash . The case also raises questions about the application of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, particularly whether the same safeguards against apply under the new codes.
The outcome of Mitra’s petition could set a precedent for how courts handle coordinated, politically motivated filings. If the quashes the FIRs or consolidates them, it may deter future attempts to weaponize the criminal justice system against individuals exercising their free speech rights. Conversely, if the Court upholds the multiplicity, it may embolden similar tactics, potentially stifling dissent and political participation.
Conclusion
The ’s decision on Sreelekha Mitra’s petition will be closely watched by civil liberties advocates, political activists, and the legal fraternity. At its core, the case is not merely about a single actress holding a placard but about the fundamental right to dissent without being subjected to a cascade of criminal proceedings. As the petition argues, the criminal process must not become a punishment in itself. The High Court’s response will determine whether the constitutional guarantees of free speech and a fair investigation can withstand the pressure of coordinated litigation.
