Law & precedent on clubbing of cases

Law & precedent on clubbing of cases

Subject : Polity

Section : Law

Context:

• The Supreme Court declined a plea by former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma to club the hate speech cases filed against her across the country. It also refused to grant interim relief.

What was the plea?

• Recently , when she was still BJP spokesperson, Sharma had made derogatory remarks about the Prophet and the Muslim community on several television debates.
• Several FIRs were registered against her including in Delhi, Mumbai, West Bengal and Assam. Sharma moved the Supreme Court seeking a transfer of all cases of hate speech against her to a court in Delhi.

What did the Supreme Court say?

• The court refused to grant interim relief to Sharma and instead asked her to approach the High Courts. 

On what grounds are such cases clubbed?

• A person cannot be prosecuted more than once for the same offence. 
• Article 20(2) of the Constitution guarantees the right against double jeopardy.
• Multiple FIRs on the same incident would virtually mean multiple trials.
• Approaching the Supreme Court in such situations is a procedural safeguard against excessive litigation.
• In T T Anthony v State of Kerala, a 2001 verdict, the Supreme Court held that there cannot be a “second FIR” on the same issue.
  • “There can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.
  • On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a Police Station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the CrPC.
• In 2020, the Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Goswami v Union of India expanded this ruling and said that similar FIRs in different jurisdictions also violate fundamental rights.
• The court said that in such a situation, the petitioner can approach the Supreme Court to club the proceedings.

Why did the Supreme Court deny Sharma’s plea?

• The SC distinguished Sharma’s case from the precedent in the Arnab Goswami case.
• It indicated that the court had granted relief to Goswami since he was a journalist and the same status cannot be extended to Sharma who was a party spokesperson.
• Although the SC in Goswami’s case emphasised press freedom, it noted that the Constitution guarantees the same free speech rights to all citizens.
• The Goswami and Anthony rulings are both valid precedents that were binding on the vacation Bench.
  • However, in an oral observation, the vacation Bench said that “if the conscience of the Court is not satisfied, the law can be moulded”.