In Brief
A journalist anchoring a debate on a televised show made comments calling a revered Sufi saint a "terrorist" and "robber." Seven FIRs were filed across multiple states alleging insult to religious sentiments and promotion of enmity. The journalist sought quashing of the FIRs, claiming they were filed in places lacking jurisdiction and that the remarks were inadvertent. The Supreme Court refused to quash the FIRs, holding that the nationwide broadcast had consequences in multiple jurisdictions, validating registration in each. However, the Court transferred all subsequent FIRs to the first-registered station and granted interim protection against arrest pending investigation, emphasising that substantive questions about intent, falsity, and harm must be examined during investigation and trial, not at the FIR stage. The decision notably develops principles distinguishing free speech from criminalisable hate speech, requiring strict standards of imminence and causality.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.