Multiple FIRs against Mohammed Zubair: Supreme Court Transfers Investigation to Delhi Police (20 July 2022)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether multiple FIRs for similar offenses based on the same set of facts (tweets) can be registered against an individual, and whether the investigation can be transferred to a single agency.

CASE TYPE: Criminal

Case Name: Mohammed Zubair vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors

Judgment Date: 20 July 2022

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 July 2022

Citation: Not available in the provided text.

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., Surya Kant, J., A S Bopanna, J.

Can a person be subjected to multiple investigations across different states for the same alleged offense? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Mohammed Zubair, co-founder of ALT News, who faced a series of FIRs for tweets he posted. The court’s decision highlights the importance of protecting personal liberty and ensuring that the criminal justice system is not used as a tool for harassment. The bench comprised of Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and A S Bopanna. The majority opinion was authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Case Background

Mohammed Zubair, the co-founder of ALT News, a fact-checking portal, was arrested on 27 June 2022, following an FIR (172/2022) registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell. The FIR alleged offenses under Sections 153-A, 295-A, 201, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 35 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA). The arrest was based on tweets posted by Zubair, which the police claimed triggered religious sentiments. Subsequently, Zubair faced a series of FIRs in Uttar Pradesh for similar offenses, leading to multiple arrests and court appearances.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner, Mohammed Zubair, was initially arrested by the Delhi Police in relation to FIR No. 172/2022. Subsequently, multiple FIRs were registered against him in Uttar Pradesh, leading to his arrest and judicial custody in those cases. The petitioner challenged the legality of his police remand before the High Court of Delhi, which issued a notice on 1 July 2022. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House Courts, Delhi, rejected his bail application on 2 July 2022, but he was later granted regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge on 15 July 2022. The Supreme Court intervened after the petitioner faced continued arrests and judicial custody in Uttar Pradesh, despite having secured bail in Delhi.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), and the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA).

• Section 153-A of the IPC: This section penalizes promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.
• Section 295-A of the IPC: This section penalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
• Section 201 of the IPC: This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offense, or giving false information to screen offender.
• Section 120-B of the IPC: This section deals with criminal conspiracy.
• Section 35 of the FCRA: This section deals with offenses and penalties related to the violation of the FCRA.
• Section 67 of the IT Act: This section deals with publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
• Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section outlines the conditions under which a police officer can arrest a person without a warrant.
• Section 41A of the CrPC: This section deals with the procedure for issuing a notice of appearance before a police officer.
• Section 91 of the CrPC: This section deals with summons to produce documents or other things.
• Section 437 of the CrPC: This section deals with when bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence.
• Section 438 of the CrPC: This section deals with the direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.
• Section 482 of the CrPC: This section deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.

These provisions are crucial in understanding the legal basis of the charges against Zubair and the court’s decision. The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the importance of balancing law enforcement with the protection of fundamental rights, especially freedom of speech and personal liberty.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments (Ms. Vrinda Grover):

• The tweets posted by the petitioner are the subject matter of FIRs registered in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh.
• The FIRs broadly implicate similar offenses under Sections 153A, 295A, 298, and 505 of the IPC, and Section 67 of the IT Act.
• The investigation in Delhi (FIR No. 172/2022) has been widened to include provisions of the FCRA.
• The tweets mentioned in the Delhi Police status report are also the basis for the FIRs in Uttar Pradesh.
• None of the tweets contain improper language or constitute an offense under criminal law.
• In several tweets, the petitioner tagged the Uttar Pradesh Police, inviting action against objectionable speeches made by others.
• The FIRs are essentially based on the same tweets, and the criminal law is being used to harass and silence the petitioner.
• The petitioner has a genuine apprehension for his safety due to threats and bounties on his life.

Respondent’s Arguments (Ms. Garima Prashad):

• The tweets posted by the petitioner have spread hate.
• The tweets have the potential to create communal divisions.
• The SIT was formed to maintain peace and harmony, considering the gravity of the situation.
• The petitioner’s repeated acts of tweeting justify the invocation of criminal law.

The petitioner argued that the multiple FIRs were a form of harassment and an attempt to stifle his freedom of speech. The respondent contended that the tweets had the potential to incite communal disharmony, justifying the multiple FIRs and investigations.

Innovativeness of the argument: The petitioner’s argument that the multiple FIRs were a form of harassment and an attempt to stifle his freedom of speech was particularly innovative in highlighting the potential abuse of the criminal justice system. The respondent’s argument focused on the potential for communal disharmony, which is a common justification for restricting speech.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issues addressed by the court were:

1. Whether multiple FIRs could be registered for similar offenses based on the same set of facts (tweets).
2. Whether the investigation of multiple FIRs could be transferred to a single investigating agency.
3. Whether the petitioner should be granted interim bail in all the FIRs.
4. Whether a blanket order preventing the petitioner from tweeting can be made.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, (2020) 14 SCC 12, Supreme Court of India: The court cited this case to emphasize the importance of protecting journalistic freedom and preventing the harassment of journalists through multiple proceedings. The court reiterated the role of courts in protecting personal liberty and ensuring that investigations are not used as a tool of harassment. The court held that the right of a journalist under Article 19(1)(a) is no higher than the right of the citizen to speak and express.
• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, Supreme Court of India: The court referred to this case to reiterate that arrest should not be a routine matter and that police officers must justify the reasons for arrest. The court highlighted that the power to arrest is not unbridled and must be exercised judiciously. The court observed that no arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offense.
• Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 10 SCC 77, Supreme Court of India: The court cited this case to emphasize that bail conditions must be proportional to the purpose of imposing them and must not be disproportionate to the need to secure the presence of the accused, proper investigation, and a fair trial. The court held that the conditions which are imposed by the court must bear a proportional relationship to the purpose of imposing conditions.
• Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. The State of Bihar, (2018) 16 SCC 74, Supreme Court of India: The court referred to this case to reiterate that the discretion of the Court in imposing conditions on bail must be exercised judiciously and to advance a fair trial.
• Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 15 SCC 570, Supreme Court of India: The court referred to this case to reiterate that the discretion of the Court in imposing conditions on bail must be exercised judiciously and to advance a fair trial.
• Sumit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 15 SCC 570, Supreme Court of India: The court referred to this case to reiterate that the discretion of the Court in imposing conditions on bail must be exercised judiciously and to advance a fair trial.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC: This section specifies the conditions under which a police officer can arrest a person without a warrant. The court emphasized that police officers must be satisfied that an arrest is necessary to prevent further offenses, for proper investigation, to prevent tampering with evidence, to prevent influencing witnesses, or to ensure the person’s presence in court.
• Section 438(2) of the CrPC: This section stipulates that the High Court or the Court of Sessions can direct a person to be released on conditional bail. The court highlighted that the conditions must be imposed in the context of the facts of a particular case and must be related to ensuring a proper investigation and fair trial.
• Sections 437 and 438 of the CrPC: The court mentioned the illustrative bail conditions stipulated in these sections which relate to the need to ensure a proper investigation and fair trial or to prevent the accused from committing an offence similar to the one he is suspected of, or in the interest of justice.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, (2020) 14 SCC 12*: The Supreme Court used this case to highlight the importance of protecting journalistic freedom and preventing harassment through multiple proceedings. It emphasized that the right of a journalist under Article 19(1)(a) is no higher than the right of a citizen to speak and express, but the court must ensure that one cannot exist without the other.
• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273*: The Supreme Court reiterated the guidelines laid down in this case, emphasizing that arrest should not be a punitive tool and must be justified. The court stated that the existence of the power to arrest is one thing, but the justification for the exercise of it is another.
• Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 10 SCC 77*: The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize that bail conditions must be proportional to the purpose of imposing them and must not be disproportionate to the need to secure the presence of the accused, proper investigation, and a fair trial. The court stated that the conditions which are imposed by the court must bear a proportional relationship to the purpose of imposing conditions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to protect the personal liberty of the petitioner and to prevent the misuse of the criminal justice system. The court emphasized that the power of arrest should not be used as a punitive tool and that individuals should not be subjected to multiple investigations for the same offense. The court also highlighted the importance of freedom of speech and expression and the need to avoid gag orders that could have a chilling effect on this right. The court balanced the need to maintain law and order with the protection of fundamental rights.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s reasoning was a blend of factual considerations (the multiple FIRs, the nature of the tweets, the sequence of events) and legal principles (protection of personal liberty, freedom of speech, and the proper use of criminal law). The legal considerations slightly outweighed the factual aspects, indicating the court’s emphasis on upholding the rule of law and constitutional rights.

The court considered the alternative interpretations and rejected the idea of allowing multiple investigations to continue, emphasizing that the process itself had become a punishment. The court also rejected the idea of imposing a gag order on the petitioner, stating that it would be disproportionate to the purpose of imposing conditions on bail.

The court’s decision was that the petitioner should be released on interim bail in all the FIRs, the investigation should be transferred to the Delhi Police Special Cell, and that no blanket order should prevent him from tweeting.

The reasons for the decision are:

• The petitioner was subjected to multiple investigations for the same offense.
• The process of investigation itself had become a punishment.
• The power of arrest should not be used as a punitive tool.
• Individuals should not be punished solely on the basis of allegations.
• Freedom of speech and expression must be protected.
• Gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The exercise of journalistic freedom lies at the core of speech and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a). India’s freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists can speak truth to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal.”

“Courts should be alive to both ends of the spectrum – the need to ensure the proper enforcement of criminal law on the one hand and the need, on the other, of ensuring that the law does not become a ruse for targeted harassment. Liberty across human eras is as tenuous as tenuous can be. Liberty survives by the vigilance of her citizens, on the cacophony of the media and in the dusty corridors of courts alive to the rule of (and not by) law.”

“Merely because the complaints filed against the petitioner arise from posts that were made by him on a social media platform, a blanket anticipatory order preventing him from tweeting cannot be made. A blanket order directing the petitioner to not express his opinion – an opinion that he is rightfully entitled to hold as an active participating citizen – would be disproportionate to the purpose of imposing conditions on bail.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

The court’s decision was based on a careful analysis of the facts, legal principles, and precedents. The court emphasized the need to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and to prevent the misuse of the criminal justice system.

The implications of this judgment are that it sets a precedent against the harassment of individuals through multiple FIRs for the same offense and that it underscores the importance of protecting freedom of speech and personal liberty. It also serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies that the power of arrest should not be used as a punitive tool.

The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reiterated existing principles related to the protection of fundamental rights and the proper use of criminal law.

Key Takeaways

• Multiple FIRs for the same offense can be consolidated and investigated by a single agency.
• The power of arrest should not be used as a punitive tool.
• Personal liberty is a fundamental right and must be protected.
• Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right and gag orders that have a chilling effect on this right should be avoided.
• Bail conditions must be proportional to the purpose of imposing them.

The decision has a significant impact on how law enforcement agencies handle cases involving multiple FIRs for the same offense. It also reinforces the importance of protecting fundamental rights and preventing the misuse of the criminal justice system. This judgment will likely be cited in future cases involving similar issues, and it serves as a reminder of the importance of balancing law enforcement with the protection of individual liberties.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The petitioner was granted interim bail in all the FIRs.
• The investigation of all FIRs was transferred to the Special Cell of the Delhi Police.
• The SIT constituted by the Uttar Pradesh Police was disbanded.
• The petitioner was allowed to pursue his remedies before the High Court of Delhi.
• The bail bonds were to be presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at the Patiala House Courts, Delhi.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that multiple FIRs for the same offense arising from the same set of facts can be consolidated for investigation by a single agency. The court also emphasized that arrest should not be used as a punitive tool and that personal liberty and freedom of speech are paramount. While the court did not introduce new legal principles, it reiterated existing ones and applied them in a way that protects fundamental rights and prevents the misuse of criminal law. This case reinforces the principles laid down in previous judgments such as Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mohammed Zubair vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors is a significant ruling that addresses the issue of multiple FIRs for the same offense and the misuse of the criminal justice system. By ordering the transfer of all FIRs to the Delhi Police Special Cell and granting interim bail to the petitioner, the court has protected his personal liberty and ensured that he isnot subjected to continued harassment. The court’s emphasis on freedom of speech and its rejection of a blanket order preventing the petitioner from tweeting are crucial in protecting democratic values. This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of balancing law enforcement with the protection of fundamental rights, and it sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues. The court’s decision underscores the need to ensure that the criminal justice system is not used as a tool for silencing dissent or stifling free speech. The court has reiterated the importance of the rule of law and the need for courts to be vigilant in protecting the rights and liberties of citizens. The court has also emphasized that the power of arrest should not be used as a punitive tool and that individuals should not be punished solely on the basis of allegations. The court has also highlighted the importance of protecting the freedom of speech and expression and the need to avoid gag orders that could have a chilling effect on this right. The court has balanced the need to maintain law and order with the protection of fundamental rights. The court’s decision is a victory for personal liberty and freedom of speech.