https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293971 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. en-us Mon, 07 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Oct 2025 15:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293971 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 07 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293971