On April 29, the Supreme Court considered whether multiple FIRs can be registered against a person for one speech made online. The question came up while hearing former JNU student Sharjeel Imam’s plea to combine all FIRs against him. These FIRs are related to alleged sedition and UAPA charges, filed in states including Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, and Arunachal Pradesh.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, expressed concern about whether pursuing separate trials in different states could violate the legal principle of double jeopardy if all charges stem from one speech.
"The speech is one, it's not separate, so there will be one offence," said the CJI during the hearing.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Declines to Quash FIRs Against TN Thowheed Jamath Members; Orders Joint Trial in Madurai
However, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, representing the Delhi government, argued that even if the speech is the same, it affected different people in different states, making each FIR a separate offence.
"If different persons are instigated separately, the offences against the state may be one, but against society will be different," explained ASG Raju.
The CJI disagreed, pointing out that this logic would apply if there were different speeches in each case. But here, the speech is singular and widely available on YouTube. Hence, it is one incident, though its impact may differ across states.
“If there was a different speech, you may be right. Here, the speech is the same,” noted the Chief Justice.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Declines Fresh Petitions Against Waqf Amendment Act, Allows Intervention in Ongoing Case
Senior Advocate Sidharth Dave, appearing for Imam, told the bench that his client keeps receiving summons from different state courts, despite already facing trial in Delhi. Dave argued that it is unreasonable to drag someone across the country for the same act.
“Now they are asking me to come to Assam, UP, Manipur — now I cannot be dragged across the country for one speech that I gave.”
He emphasized that even if Imam’s speech was controversial, the law must be followed fairly.
“I may have given the worst of the speeches, but I have the right to rule of law… which Mr Raju cannot take away,” said Dave.
To ensure fairness, the CJI suggested pausing trials in other states until the Delhi trial concludes.
“Mr Raju, if you permit, we can stay the trial in other states till the Delhi trial is complete.”
The ASG mentioned that he did not represent the other states involved and would respond with legal precedents in the next hearing. The Court then scheduled the matter to be heard again in two weeks.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Says Owning Spyware Not Illegal; Real Question is Who It's Used Against in Pegasus Case
In August 2024, the Supreme Court had already asked the governments of the four states involved whether they objected to transferring their trials and chargesheets to Delhi. It was also informed that investigations in Assam and Manipur were complete and Imam was eligible for default bail in Assam.
Sharjeel Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020, for speeches made at Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University. He has remained in custody since then. His main request is to merge all FIRs and have a single trial in Delhi.
Case Title: Sharjeel Imam vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
Diary No.: 4730-2020
