Breaking: "You Cannot Hurt Religious Sentiments":Supreme Court Refuses Interim Protection To Makers Of Tandav Against Multiple FIRs

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notices on a plea filed by the Director, Producer, Writer and Actor of the web series Tandav seeking for clubbing and transferring of criminal proceedings which have been initiated against them in various cities for allegedly hurting religious sentiments. A Bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah refused to grant any interim protection to the accused persons apprehending arrest from Police departments of six states. "We cannot use the power under Section 482 CrPC. We are not inclined to grant interim protection," the Bench said. The bench also said that it was rejecting the prayer for quashing of the FIRs.It however clarified that the pendency of the petition in the Supreme Court will not prejudice the right of petitioners to seek appropriate remedies from concerned courts for bail or quashing of FIRs. Delete [BREAKING] #Tandav Series Row : Supreme Court issues notice on the prayers for transferring and clubbing of FIRs.Bench rejects the prayer for granting of interim protection from arrest. Grants liberty to petitioners to seek bail in concerned courts.#SupremeCourt #PrimeVideo https://t.co/YrQBZC2Pm3— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) January 27, 2021 The Petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates Fali Nariman, Mukul Rohatgi (for Amazon India Creative Head Aparna Purohit) Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra (for producer Himanshu Mehra, director Ali Abbas Zafar and writer Gaurav Solanki) and Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal (for actor Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub).The petitioners' lawyers persuaded the bench for interim protection by referring to similar orders granted in 'Arnab Goswami' & 'Amish Devgan' cases. They submitted that refusal of interim protection will lead to "havoc", as the petitioners will have to file bail applications in different districts in different states. However, the bench was not inclined to grant the prayer. The bench also orally remarked during hearing that religious sentiments cannot be hurt. COURTROOM EXCHANGE Plea for interim protection from arrest The Petitioners' Advocates insisted that they be granted interim protection from arrest. "We also need protection. We will be arrested by six different state polices," Rohtagi submitted. He referred to Arnab Goswami's case where a Division bench of the Supreme Court granted interim protection during hearing of the matter. Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra submitted that in the Amish Devgan case, though FIRs were refused to be quashed, the Court allowed the continuation of interim protection from arrest. It also permitted clubbing of FIRs and transferred the case to Ajmer. [Note: As many as 7 FIRs were filed in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra & Telangana against Devgan on the basis of alleged derogatory remarks that he made against Sufi Saint Moinnuddin Chisti on his prime time show, telecast on June 15, 2020.] Nothing survives in complaints as objectionable content is removed Senior Advocates Fali Nariman and Mukul Rohatgi submitted that nothing survives in the matter as the objectionable parts of the series, that hurt the "so-called religious sentiments" of people, had been removed. He submitted that the Petitioners were being harassed by filing of FIRs/petitions in different states and urged that the Top Court protect their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. On being inquired as to why they had not approached the High Court first, Narmian submitted, "FIRs are filed in 6 states. And it's increasing everyday. There's some sort of concert in this and we want to avoid it. Now we have 7 in the last 5 days." Why not approach the High Court? Nariman insisted that the question involved herein pertains to rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, that was protected even in Arnab Goswami's case, without relegating him to the High Court. He submitted, "People are now offended by everything ! The Petitioners reside in Bombay. Why will they go to different States. In Arnab Goswami, your Lordships stated that violation of 19(1)(a) could allow us to approach SC." Progressing this argument, Rohtagi urged the Top Court to at least club all the FIR together so that the Petitioners do not have to defend themselves in different High Courts. He referred to the MF Husaain's case where a similar relief was granted. Rohtagi added, "Even though we admit that we have not done anything wrong. It is a political satire. If people are so sensitive in everything, then art, cinema, TV, all will be destroyed. Article 19(1)(a) is the most jealously guarded right. It must be protected. This was also held in Arnab Goswami. This is a genuine innocent case. We have done no wrong. Every day there is a new FIR. Where will a man go? Can he go to every state and argue? Your lordships may at least club the FIRs." Luthra also submitted that even though the right...

Breaking: "You Cannot Hurt Religious Sentiments":Supreme Court Refuses Interim Protection To Makers Of Tandav Against Multiple FIRs

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags