Udhayanidhi Stalin voiced apprehension in the Supreme Court that enquiries in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra would ‘certainly have political overtones’ and affect his right to fair trial. File
| Photo Credit: S. Siva Saravanan
The Supreme Court on Monday inclined to examine a plea by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin to club First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against him in multiple States over his remarks on ‘Sanatana Dharma’.
Initially the Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said Mr. Stalin was no layman, and should have realised the consequences that would follow his remarks.
Mr. Stalin responded that he was not before the Supreme Court on the merits of the case, but on a question of procedure. He said the registration of multiple FIRs was a violation of his right to fair trial and amounted to “persecution before prosecution”.
“You abuse Article 19(1)(a) [free speech], you abuse Article 25 [freedom of conscience]. Now you are coming here under Article 32 [writ protection of fundamental rights]… You are not a layman. You are a Minister. You should have realised the consequences,” Justice Datta addressed senior advocates A.M. Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi and P. Wilson, appearing for the Tamil Nadu Minister.
Justice Khanna said Mr. Stalin could approach the High Courts in each of these States. The judge reasoned that it was not even certain at present whether charge sheets would even be filed in all these FIRs spread across Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, Karnataka and Jammu and Kashmir for various offences, including promoting communal enmity and outraging religious feelings.
Mr. Singhvi said there were instances in the past, in the cases of TV anchors Arnab Goswami, Amish Devgan and Nupur Sharma, when the top court had intervened and clubbed the FIRs in one place.
“I may lose or win the case on merits. But this is persecution, making me run around. The FIRs are based on the same statement,” Mr. Singhvi submitted.
Justice Datta asked if the Minister expected a witness to come all the way from Jammu to Tamil Nadu to appear in the case.
Neutral place
“Then do not have it in Tamil Nadu. Have it in a neutral place. Have it in one place and not all places at the same time. Otherwise this is persecution before prosecution… I will suffer my fate whatever the place you club the FIRs at. I am not on the merits of the case,” Mr. Singhvi responded.
The petition filed by Mr. Stalin, through advocate Purvish Jitendra Malkan, said it was well-settled in criminal law that only the criminal courts within whose territorial jurisdiction the alleged offence took place would proceed with the case. Mr. Stalin made the speech at Kamarajar auditorium in Chennai. The jurisdiction would be vested in a court in Chennai.
‘Political overtones’
Mr. Stalin voiced apprehension that enquiries in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra would “certainly have political overtones” and affect his right to fair trial.
“Filing different complaints in different courts was a means to harass the petitioner and drown him in litigation. The petitioner will have to spend all his time travelling to courts across the country. He has already received grave threats, including death threats,” the petition said.
The court listed the case on March 15.
