Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated it may consider transferring multiple cases filed across different states to Delhi in connection with controversial speeches, observing that the core content of the speech appeared to be the same.

The Bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a petition seeking the clubbing of FIRs registered in various states arising out of the same speech.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Imam, argued that he was facing prosecution in multiple states for the same speech, and such multiplicity of trials violated his fundamental rights and principles of fair trial. “We are seeking consolidation of FIRs. One speech has led to multiple FIRs. I am being summoned in Assam, Uttar Pradesh, and Manipur. I cannot be dragged across the country for a single speech,” Dave submitted.

Chief Justice Khanna remarked, “Let it be transferred to Delhi,” suggesting that consolidating the cases would avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju opposed the transfer, arguing that different FIRs were based on different crimes and elements of instigation varied across states like Bihar. “Sections are different, offences are different,” he submitted.

The ASG also argued that trials had already commenced in some States. He submitted that in Delhi, 22 witnesses had already been examined.

The CJI, however, noted that if the FIRs pertain to the same speech, then the argument of different proceedings loses merit. “If it were a different speech, your argument may have merit, but here, it’s the same speech,” the CJI remarked.

To this, ASG Raju insisted that the content of the speech in question was highly inflammatory, stating, “In that speech, he said Assam should be separated from India.”

The Bench further questioned whether it was necessary for Imam to face parallel prosecutions for the same offence in different jurisdictions. “The same speech can be heard across multiple states… the offence remains the same,” the CJI observed, adding, “If you permit, we can consider staying the trial proceedings in other states.”

ASG Raju, however, clarified that he was representing only the Delhi Government and was not authorized to make submissions on behalf of the other states.

Counsel for the other states submitted that an updated status report was required as the matter was being taken up after a significant gap.

In a lighter exchange during the hearing, the CJI mused, “Imagine; one speech leading to 500 prosecutions across India. Responding to ASG Raju’s objection, he said, “The question is whether that speech has led to distinct offences elsewhere.”

Taking note of the submissions, the Court adjourned the matter for two weeks and directed the states to file updated status reports in the meantime. The Bench also left open the question of staying proceedings in other states pending further consideration of Imam’s plea.

It is to be noted that on August 13, 2024, the Court had directed the respondent states to clarify whether they had any objections to the consolidation of the cases and proceeding with the trial in Delhi.

Imam is currently lodged in Tihar Jail and facing charges under multiple Sections of the Indian Penal Code, including sedition, promoting enmity between groups, and unlawful activities under the UAPA.

Case Title: Sharjeel Imam v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [Diary No. 4730/2020]