The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant ruling in the case of Rahamathulla v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Others, refusing to quash the First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against two members of Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath. These FIRs were lodged after the members were accused of delivering objectionable speeches following the Karnataka High Court's judgment in the hijab case.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
“The language used by the petitioners in their speeches is highly objectionable and definitely discloses the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged. Hence, there is no scope for exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution to quash the FIRs,”
– Supreme Court
Read Also:- Supreme Court Declines Fresh Petitions Against Waqf Amendment Act, Allows Intervention in Ongoing Case
The Court rejected the petitioners’ plea to annul the FIRs but agreed to club multiple FIRs filed in Madurai, Thanjavur, and Bangalore. The judges stated that all three FIRs originated from the same speech delivered on 17th March 2022 in Madurai, Tamil Nadu.
“Allowing multiple prosecutions in different jurisdictions could lead to conflicting decisions and multiple trials for the same matter, which is not expedient in the interest of justice,”
– the Court observed
The Court relied on the precedent set in the Amish Devgan case (2021), invoking Article 142 to consolidate all FIRs to one jurisdiction for joint trial.
The FIRs were registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including 153A, 505(1)(b), 505(1)(c), 505(2), 506(1), and 109. The speeches allegedly:
- Praised Afzal Guru, the mastermind behind the Parliament attack
- Criticized the Ayodhya Ram Temple verdict
- Made remarks against religious practices of Christians, Hindus, and Sikhs
- Criticized the attire of the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister
- Tried to justify hijab wearing by comparing it with other religious customs
Read Also:- Supreme Court Says Owning Spyware Not Illegal; Real Question is Who It's Used Against in Pegasus Case
The petitioners also used offensive language towards judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, which the Court said had the potential to harm public order and judicial dignity.
The bench found that all speeches were made within the jurisdiction of Thallakulam Police Station in Madurai and hence ordered:
“All trials arising from FIR No. 223 of 2022 (Madurai), FIR No. 189 of 2022 (Thanjavur), and FIR No. 18 of 2022 (Bangalore) shall be transferred to a competent court in Madurai for joint trial,”
– Supreme Court direction under Article 32 read with Article 142
The petitions were thus disposed of, and the Court directed Registrar Generals of both the Karnataka and Madras High Courts to take necessary steps for compliance.
Case Details: RAHAMATHULLA v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.| WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 132 OF 2022
