The Supreme Court observed that multiple FIRs registered in different States against Sharjeel Imam for a single speech may require a stay to prevent parallel prosecutions. While hearing Imam’s plea seeking clubbing of FIRs, the Court noted that one speech, publicly accessible online, should not lead to multiple trials across jurisdictions, risking procedural inconsistency
The matter stems from a plea filed by Sharjeel Imam, a key accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, seeking a direction to consolidate several FIRs registered against him in different States. These FIRs were filed in relation to a speech delivered by him at Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University, which allegedly incited communal unrest. Imam argued that despite the same factual basis, a single speech, he has been subjected to numerous criminal proceedings across States including Assam, Manipur, Uttar Pradesh, and Arunachal Pradesh, in addition to multiple cases pending in Delhi.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for Imam, contended that the petitioner is being subjected to unlawful prosecutorial harassment by being dragged into repeated litigations for the same alleged offence. He submitted that, “For one case, can there be 500 prosecutions?” He urged the Court to intervene before the upcoming summer recess, stating that the continued multiplicity of trials for a solitary act was in violation of settled legal principles against double jeopardy and procedural fairness.
Countering these submissions, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the State, maintained that although the speech in question was identical, the resultant disturbances and mob instigations occurred independently in different territorial jurisdictions. He asserted that the distinct consequences in each State justified separate proceedings, as each instance amounted to an individual offence under criminal law.
However, the Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, appeared inclined to consider the broader implications of simultaneous prosecutions for the same conduct. Observing that the speech was "on YouTube etc and then it can be heard across India.. impact will be the same," the Court expressed concern over the legal sustainability of initiating multiple FIRs for one speech merely on the basis of its online accessibility.
CJI Khanna remarked, “We can stay trial in other cases of States... Manipur, Arunachal, UP... and let it go in Delhi?” indicating that the Delhi proceedings may be treated as the principal case, with other trials potentially stayed pending further orders.
At the conclusion of the hearing, after ASG Raju sought time to place relevant judicial precedents on record, the Court directed that the matter be listed again after two weeks. “Okay, file your submissions. List it after two weeks. Let it remain on board,” the Court stated, thereby deferring final determination until all sides have had an opportunity to present their complete arguments.
Picture Source :
