Supreme Court Quashes FIRs Against Nonagenarian Ashis Nandy Citing Age and Apology, Despite Strongly Condemning His 'Objectionable' Comments

SC Quashes FIRs Against 90-Year-Old Ashis Nandy Over 2013 Lit Fest Remarks, Cites Age and Apology

New Delhi: In a significant order balancing condemnation with clemency, the Supreme Court has quashed all criminal proceedings against renowned 90-year-old intellectual Ashis Nandy, which were initiated following his controversial comments at the Jaipur Literary Festival in 2013. A bench of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria , while strongly condemning the petitioner's remarks as "very objectionable," allowed the writ petition primarily on the grounds of his advanced age, the prolonged 12-year legal battle, and an unconditional apology tendered in 2014.

Case Background: The Controversial Remarks and Subsequent FIRs

The case originated from comments made by Mr. Nandy during a panel discussion at the Jaipur Literary Festival in January 2013. The remarks, perceived as offensive towards marginalized sections of society, led to widespread public outcry and the registration of multiple criminal cases against him.

The initial FIR No.35/2013 was filed at Police Station Ashok Nagar in Jaipur. Subsequently, another FIR (No.53/2013) was registered in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, and a private criminal complaint (C.C. No.248/2013) was filed in Patna, Bihar. Mr. Nandy approached the Supreme Court through a writ petition seeking to quash all these proceedings.

Arguments Before the Court

The petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Mr. Sunil Fernandes, highlighted that Mr. Nandy is a "renowned intellectual and clinical psychologist, social theorist and critic of universal acclaim." The bench, however, was quick to state that celebrity status would not shield him from scrutiny, cautioning that "the celebrity status of the petitioner will not deter us from finding fault with him, if he has made objectionable comments."

Representing the complainant, Senior Advocate Dr. K.S. Chauhan drew the Court's attention to the "very objectionable comments" made by the petitioner. The Court noted that even a fellow panelist had immediately objected to the statement at the time, calling it "bizarre."

Court's Reasoning: A Stern Condemnation Tempered with Mercy

The Supreme Court unequivocally sided with the complainant regarding the nature of the remarks. In its order, the bench stated:

"We perfectly agree with the objection raised and we find the statement to be very objectionable. We cannot but condemn the statements made in the strongest terms, especially since it does not become a person of the petitioner’s status and his self-proclaimed attainments of acclaim and renown."

Despite this strong condemnation, the Court shifted its focus to the "peculiar facts and circumstances" of the case. It took judicial notice of two critical factors:

• The Petitioner's Age: The Court observed that Mr. Nandy is now 90 years old.
• Prolonged Proceedings: The criminal cases had been pending for approximately 12 years, hanging over his head "akin to the sword of Damocles."

The most decisive factor, however, was an "unconditionally and unequivocally made" apology tendered by Mr. Nandy before the Court in a letter, which was officially recorded in a court order dated November 24, 2014. The Court noted that the respondents were given the liberty to publish this apology but had not done so.

The Final Verdict

Balancing its stern disapproval of the comments against the mitigating circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings would not serve the interests of justice.

"Though we condemn the statements made by the petitioner in the strongest terms, we are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the petitioner is now a nonagenarian, we direct that the criminal complaints be quashed," the Court ordered.

The bench explicitly stated that the writ petition was being allowed "only by reason of the apology proffered." Consequently, all three criminal proceedings in Rajasthan and Bihar were quashed, bringing an end to the 12-year-long legal ordeal for the nonagenarian scholar.