Read Time: 10 minutes

The Supreme Court Wednesday refused to quash FIRs for hurting religious sentiments against makers and actors of the controversial web series Tandav. However, the bench issued notice in the prayer for clubbing FIRs filed in as many as 6 states against various stakeholders of the show.

The bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan orally observed during the course of the hearing that an actor is not precluded from the onus of hurting religious sentiments if he accepts a role, which he does after reading the script.

The bench made these remarks after Counsel appearing for actor Md. Zeeshan Ayyub informed Court that there Ayyub was contracted to play a certain character and the views expressed by the character on screen could not be ascribed to his own.

Court has however stated that the petitioners have recourse to the law as is suitable and as if applicable for purposes of seeking interim protection.

When the hearing commenced, Senior Advocates Fali S Nariman, Mukul Rohatgi & Siddharth Luthra appeared on screen, representing the petitioners.

"If people are so sensitive in this country, there will be a complete destruction of Article 19(1)(a). My lords have protected Arnab Goswami. He was on TV, we have created a political satire. I appeared for MF Hussain back in the day. My lords had stayed FIRs then,"
- Rohatgi to Supreme Court.

To this, the Court stated,

"Article 19(1)(a) is not an absolute right. It comes with reasonable restrictions"

Senior Advocate Fali S Nariman also appeared for petitioners, urging the Court to quash FIRs filed against his clients.

"We have already removed the objectionable parts. Even though, we did not agree with the fact that they were in fact, objectionable. Even after this, 4 FIRs were filed against us,"
- Nariman to Supreme Court

Further, Nariman argued that since the objectionable parts had already been taken down by the makers, nothing survived in these FIR's. He urged the Court to quash them, stating that they had been filed in 6 different states. 

Justice Bhushan: You want all FIRs to be quashed?
Nariman: Yes.
Justice Bhushan: You can file petitions in the High Court.
Nariman: The problem is they have been filed in 6 different states.
Their ego has been hurt, we have removed it.

Next, Nariman stated that the Supreme Court had granted relief to Arnab Goswami recently and in light of the same precedent, indulgence should be metted out to his client(s). 

Elaborating on the same, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi added that sentiments are hurt at the drop of a hat in India today. He further elaborated on how the indulgence granted by top court in the Arnab Goswami issue can be a case in point for the instant issue.

"My Lords have held, for violation of Article 19(1)(a), petitioner can come toSupreme Court. Nowadays, people file an FIR for anything and everything. My lords may at least direct clubbing these FIRs in Bombay"
- Rohatgi to Supreme Court

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra cited multiple judgments including those of the Supreme Court Amish Devgan and Arnab Goswami but the Court refused to quash FIRs noting that in none of these cases, FIRs were quashed.

"This serial is about political & social issues. Nothing derogatory in the web series Tandav. Just look at the kind of offences that have been invoked against me. I can choose to watch or not to watch on these OTT platforms. It is about consent."
- Luthra to Supreme Court

FIRs have been filed in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Mumbai as well against the makers and actors of the controversial web series which has come under backlash for hurting religious sentiments for allegedly mocking Hindu Deities.

Recently, a criminal complaint was filed in Bangalore against the makers of the show.

In New Delhi New complaint was filed by Hindu Sena Chief Vishnu Gupta alleging that in first episode of the web series, one of the accused actor Mohd. Zeeshan Ayyub has disguised himself as Lord Shiva and has stated that Lord Ram’s followers are constantly increasing on social media and that Lord Shiva’s followers should also make some new strategies to increase their fan base.

The complainant(s) have further alleged that this particular remark in the web series deliberately and maliciously passed, is absolutely derogatory & outrages religious feelings of Hindus by mocking Hindu Gods, without any justification and with the sole intention to promote enmity.

The cases have been filed u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the complainant has accused the defendants of committing offences under Sections 153A, 295A, 505(1)(b), 505(2), 34 of the IPC and Sections 66/67A of the IT Act 2000.

Case Title: Himanshu Kishan Mehra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh