Transfer of FIRs: Supreme Court directs investigation of Navika Kumar’s cases to Delhi Police, (23 September 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 23 September 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 430

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Krishna Murari, J.

When multiple criminal complaints are filed against an individual for the same incident, can all those cases be investigated by a single agency? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving journalist Navika Kumar, who faced multiple FIRs across different states for a news debate. The Court ordered that all the FIRs be transferred to the Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations (IFSO) unit of the Delhi Police for a consolidated investigation. This decision ensures that the investigation is streamlined, and the accused does not have to face multiple investigations.

Case Background

Navika Kumar, a journalist, was the anchor for a Newshour Debate telecasted on Times Now on 26 May 2022. Following this broadcast, several FIRs and criminal complaints were filed against her in various police stations across different states. These complaints alleged that her statements during the debate violated several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including those related to promoting enmity between different groups, hurting religious sentiments, and making statements conducing to public mischief.

The petitioner sought relief from the Supreme Court, requesting that all the FIRs be quashed or, alternatively, transferred and clubbed with the first reported FIR, which was registered by the Special Cell of Delhi Police. She also asked for a stay on any coercive action against her.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner, Navika Kumar, approached the Supreme Court seeking the quashing of multiple FIRs registered against her across various states, all stemming from the same incident—a news debate on Times Now. The petitioner argued that since similar FIRs against a co-accused, Nupur Sharma, had been transferred to the IFSO Unit of Delhi Police, the same should be done for her to avoid multiple investigations by different agencies.

The Solicitor General of India, representing the Union of India, the Government of NCT of Delhi, the State of Maharashtra, and the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, along with the counsel for the State of West Bengal, did not dispute the fact that the FIRs against the co-accused were transferred to the IFSO Unit of Delhi Police.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under which the FIRs were registered. These include:

• Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with 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.
  “153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.—(1) Whoever—(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, or (c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
  (2) Offence committed in place of worship, etc.—Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section penalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
  “295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.—Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.
  “298. Uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.—Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
  “504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.—Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with statements conducing to public mischief.
  “505. Statements conducing to public mischief.—
  (1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report,—
  (a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or
  (b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility; or
  (c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community,
  shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
  (2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.—Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
  (3) Offence under sub-section (2) committed in place of worship, etc.—Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (2) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
  (4) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with punishment for criminal intimidation.
  “506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
  “34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with punishment of criminal conspiracy.
  “120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
  (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.”

Arguments

The petitioner, Navika Kumar, argued that multiple FIRs and criminal complaints had been filed against her across different states for the same incident, i.e., the Newshour Debate telecasted on Times Now on 26.05.2022. She contended that this situation was similar to that of another co-accused, Nupur Sharma, in whose case the Supreme Court had already transferred all FIRs to the IFSO Unit of Delhi Police. Therefore, the petitioner requested that the same order be passed in her case to avoid multiple investigations by different agencies.

The petitioner also submitted that the investigation of any subsequent FIRs/complaints which are registered in future in respect of the same incident, namely, Newshour Debate telecasted on Times Now on 26.05.2022 shall also stand transferred to IFSO unit of Delhi Police, as was done in the case of Nupur Sharma.

The Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Union of India and various state governments, did not dispute the fact that similar FIRs against the co-accused, Nupur Sharma, had been transferred to the IFSO Unit of Delhi Police. They did not raise any objections to the petitioner’s plea for a similar transfer.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but considered the petitioner’s request for the transfer of FIRs to the IFSO Unit of Delhi Police, similar to the order passed in the case of co-accused Nupur Sharma. The primary issue was whether the FIRs against the petitioner should be transferred to a single investigating agency to ensure a streamlined investigation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court primarily relied on its previous order in the case of Nupur Sharma, where similar FIRs were transferred to the IFSO Unit of Delhi Police.

Judgment

The Court considered the order passed in the case of Nupur Sharma, where similar FIRs were transferred to the IFSO Unit of Delhi Police. The Court stated that there cannot be two investigating agencies for the same FIRs/complaints arising out of the same incident/occurrence with respect to different co-accused.

The Court ordered that all the FIRs/complaints mentioned in the petition, along with any future FIRs/complaints related to the same incident, be transferred to the IFSO Unit of Delhi Police. The Court also directed that the first FIR No. 683 dated 28.05.2022 along with FIR No. 140 of 2022 dated 08.06.2022 registered by Delhi Police, IFSO Unit are to be treated as lead cases and investigated together along with the other FIRs/complaints.

The Court also directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner for a period of eight weeks, allowing her to approach the concerned court or the Delhi High Court for appropriate relief.

The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations in the FIRs/complaints.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to transfer all FIRs to the IFSO Unit of Delhi Police was primarily influenced by the need to ensure a fair and streamlined investigation process. The Court emphasized the following points:

• Parity with Co-accused: The Court noted that similar FIRs against a co-accused, Nupur Sharma, had already been transferred to the IFSO Unit. Applying the principle of parity, the Court found it appropriate to transfer Navika Kumar’s FIRs to the same agency.
• Avoidance of Multiple Investigations: The Court recognized that having multiple investigating agencies for the same incident could lead to confusion, duplication of efforts, and potentially conflicting findings. Consolidating the investigation under a single agency would ensure a more efficient and coordinated process.
• Fairness and Justice: The Court’s decision aimed to protect the petitioner from the harassment and inconvenience of facing multiple investigations in different states. By centralizing the investigation, the Court sought to ensure a fair and just outcome for all parties involved.

Key Takeaways

• Multiple FIRs related to the same incident can be transferred to a single investigating agency to ensure a streamlined and fair investigation.
• The Supreme Court prioritizes the principle of parity, ensuring that co-accused individuals facing similar charges are treated equally.
• Individuals facing multiple FIRs for the same incident can seek relief from the Supreme Court for the transfer of cases to a single investigating agency.
• The IFSO Unit of Delhi Police has been designated as a central agency for investigating cases related to the Newshour Debate telecasted on Times Now on 26.05.2022.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. All FIRs/complaints mentioned in the petition were ordered to be transferred to the IFSO unit of Delhi Police.
2. The first FIR No. 683 dated 28.05.2022 along with FIR No. 140 of 2022 dated 08.06.2022 registered by Delhi Police, IFSO Unit are to be treated as lead cases and investigated together along with the other FIRs/complaints.
3. The IFSO unit of Delhi Police was given the liberty to collect and gather any information from the concerned State agencies, if so required, for the purpose of conducting a thorough investigation and taking it to its logical conclusion.
4. No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for a period of eight weeks from the date of the order, to enable the petitioner to approach the concerned Court/Delhi High Court for appropriate relief.
5. The investigation of any subsequent FIRs/complaints which are registered in future in respect of the same Newshour Debate telecasted on Times Now on 26.05.2022 shall also stand transferred to IFSO unit of Delhi police.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when multiple FIRs are filed against an individual for the same incident, the Supreme Court can transfer all such FIRs to a single investigating agency to ensure a fair and streamlined investigation. This decision reinforces the principle of parity and avoids the harassment of multiple investigations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Navika Kumar case ensures that all FIRs related to the Newshour Debate telecasted on Times Now on 26.05.2022 are investigated by a single agency, the IFSO Unit of Delhi Police. This ruling not only provides relief to the petitioner but also sets a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the need for a streamlined and fair investigation process when multiple complaints arise from the same incident. The Court’s decision underscores its commitment to ensuring that individuals are not subjected to multiple investigations by different agencies for the same cause of action.