Hate speech FIRs and multiple-FIR consolidation: Supreme Court narrows quashing at threshold, centralises later complaints, grants protection.

The Supreme Court analysed FIRs arising from a telecast and held that territorial jurisdiction was not lacking because the broadcast was nationwide and effects were felt where complainants were located. It treated the plea of trivial harm as fact-sensitive and unsuitable for final determination at the quashing stage. On the hate-speech allegations, it read the penal provisions with free speech principles and indicated that liability depends on deliberate, malicious speech with a proximate nexus to hatred, public disorder, or outrage to religious feelings. It also applied the rule against multiple FIRs for the same occurrence by directing later FIRs to be centralised with the first, and issued protective directions on threat perception.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned FIRs disclosed a jurisdictional defect or were liable to be quashed at the threshold, including on the plea of trivial harm; (ii) Whether the allegations attracted the offences relating to hate speech, enmity, and outrage to religious feelings so as to justify refusal to quash; (iii) Whether all subsequent FIRs arising from the same telecast were liable to be transferred and clubbed with the first FIR; (iv) Whether protective directions were warranted in respect of threat perception.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned FIRs disclosed a jurisdictional defect or were liable to be quashed at the threshold, including on the plea of trivial harm.

Analysis: The place of registration of the FIRs was held not to suffer from want of territorial jurisdiction because the broadcast was nationwide and the consequences of the alleged statements were felt in the places where the complainants were located. The plea based on trivial or slight harm was left open and not accepted at the investigation stage, as the Court found that the question depended upon facts, evidence, intent, and surrounding circumstances which could not be finally determined in a writ petition under Article 32.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge and the plea of trivial harm were rejected at this stage, against the Petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the allegations attracted the offences relating to hate speech, enmity, and outrage to religious feelings so as to justify refusal to quash.

Analysis: The Court interpreted the penal provisions dealing with promotion of enmity, deliberate and malicious insult to religion, and statements creating or promoting hatred by reading them consistently with the constitutional guarantee of free speech and the limits of reasonable restriction. It held that criminal liability arises only where the speech is deliberate, malicious, and has a proximate nexus with public disorder, hatred, or outrage of religious feelings, and that mere discussion, criticism, or even offensive speech does not suffice. Applying those standards, the Court held that the disputed issues of content, intent, context, and harm required investigation and could not justify quashing at inception.

Conclusion: The prayer to quash the FIRs was rejected, against the Petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether all subsequent FIRs arising from the same telecast were liable to be transferred and clubbed with the first FIR.

Analysis: Relying on the rule against multiple FIRs for the same occurrence, the Court held that later FIRs concerning the same broadcast could not proceed independently as separate first information reports. The proper course was to treat the later complaints as statements in the investigation and to centralise the matter at the place of the first FIR, so that the investigation could proceed without prejudice to the complainants or the accused.

Conclusion: The prayer for transfer of the subsequent FIRs was allowed, in favour of the Petitioner.

Issue (iv): Whether protective directions were warranted in respect of threat perception.

Analysis: In view of the allegations of threats and the need to protect personal safety during the pendency of investigation, the Court directed the concerned States to assess the threat perception of the Petitioner and his family members and to take appropriate steps.

Conclusion: Protective directions were granted, in favour of the Petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The Court refused to interdict the investigation or quash the FIRs, but centralised the later FIRs at the police station where the first FIR had been lodged and issued protective directions regarding threat assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases alleging hate speech and religious offence, quashing at the threshold is unwarranted where the dispute turns on contested questions of content, context, intent, and impact, and later FIRs arising from the same incident should be consolidated with the first FIR to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

---