Thread by @barandbench

[AMISH DEVGAN MATTER]

A Justice AM Khanwilkar led bench to hear journalist @AMISHDEVGAN 's petition seeking stay and quashing of FIRs against him, lodged on account of derogatory words used to describe Sufi Saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti.

#SupremeCourt #KhwajaChishti

Currently, there is an interim stay on the investigations concerning all the FIRs by the top court

Adv Siddharth Luthra states that another intervention application has been filed and that the main matter needs to be heard.m

Justice Khanwilkar: There is a custody matter. We will hear this after that case

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: I do not know if this matter will take time. The person has already tendered apology and I don't know if this should be stretched any further

Luthra: please hear this after the custody matter

An intervenor seeks to argue. SC asks him to wait till the hearing commences.

Hearing begins

Senior advocate Luthra: the matter arises out of an incident ...

Justice Khanwilkar: We need to conclude today

Luthra: In a program called "Aar Paar" telecasted by @News18HindiUP (News18). In the program he had asked certain questions which was aired on June 15. While talking about a historical figure...

Justice Khanna: topic of the show?

Luthra: Issue in the talk show was debate regarding Kashi Mathura temple and the challenge by a hindu organisation against the Religious places act 1991 here in supreme court.

Senior Advocate reads out the transcript of the show to the judges.

Senior Adv Luthra says soon a PIL will have to be filed so that a better bandwidth can be given to the lawyer for virtual hearings (hearing resumes)

Luthra says @AMISHDEVGAN had asked if Ayodhya issue was resolved, why not the #KashiMathura dispute? after this various issues were discussed, unfortunately there is a talk where there is a reference to Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti.

Senior Adv Luthra now refers to the entire transcript where the Sufi saint was cited in the show. The counsel maintains that it was an "inadvertent mention."

Maulana Qadri and Sudhanshu Trivedi was arguing then.

Luthra now cites the part where Sufism was being on the News18 show.

Justice Khanwilkar: did participants react to the comment?

Justice Khanna: Is there any reference to Khilji before this?

Luthra: no there is no reference

Justice Khanwilkar: Did anyone react to "Lootera Chishti"?

Luthra: No My Lord, no reaction was there

Luthra referes to invasions by Mughal rulers as discussed the show anchored by @AMISHDEVGAN

Luthra now says that @AMISHDEVGAN concluded by saying that all religions should be respected.
Luthra: This is the sum total of the show

Justice Khanwilkar: there is only one place of reference or anywhere else

Luthra: Only once, lootera chishti and akranta chishti

Luthra: he ends by saying that all religions should be respected

Justice Khanwilkar: can you give us sentences where such references to Chishti and Khilji was made

Luthra: It was a slip of tongue. he is a believer of Khwaja Chishti. He visits the shrine every year

Devgan's counsel further mentions that @AMISHDEVGAN had stated he does not want to make the debate a hot topic of Hindu vs Muslim

Counsel: Atiqur Rehman thanked Devgan for not making the show a saga of Hindu vs Muslim

Adv Vivek Jain: the reference to Khilji is by another panelist and Khilji’s name was mentioned then and thereby the name crops up

Justice Khanwilkar: Alauddin Khilji’s name was taken to say that hes an inspirational figure for some in the show

Vivek Jain: yes it is after this the mix up had happened.

Luthra: its a debate where different people were asking different questions. issues regarding communalism and religion was being discussed.

Justice Khanna: come to page 7. what do you mean by "Darr ki dukaan"

Luthra: he was referring to the atmosphere of fear

Luthra: Muslim camp was saying that a new dukaan was being attempted to be start by VHP etc. It was in response to one of the debaters that Amish Devgan said it

Justice Khanwilkar: please put the original hindi transcript also on record to avoid confusion

Justice Khanna: what do you mean to say by "darr ki dukaan pehle hi khol de." ?

Justice Khanwilkar: it is in reference to a previous statement

Luthra: Amish Devgan refers to the Jamiat Ulema e Hind plea and says thats why darr ki dukaan was mentioned stating are Muslims afraid

Luthra refers to the point of talk when it was being discussed how COVID19 was being ignored and issues such as Kashi Mathura issue was being discussed.

Luthra: After Devgan realises there is a mistake, he issues an apology

Justice Khanwilkar: was the apology after crticism. which date was the tweet?

Luthra: He tweeted on June 17 midnight at 12:17 am. this was followed by a video clarification which was run the whole day

Justice Khanwilkar: was this in response to any criticism?

Luthra: it was after he realised that there was a mistake. It was on his own

Justice Khanwilkar: we wanted to know this as a matter of fact

SC: when was FIR registered?

Luthra: FIR was registered at 11:58 pm, just minutes before the twitter apology

Justice Khanna: written complaint was made for FIR which was before the tweet was put out

SC: FIR was in news and thereafter apology was made

Luthra: i did not know about the FIR and there is no correlation between the FIR and the apology. ink was not dry on FIR when i had given my apology

SC: we can assume so many things or facts as to what happened

Luthra: 18 minutes after the FIR was the apology issued

SC: 18 minutes isnt enough for it to be communicated
complaint takes time to be written and it must be on social media by then.

Luthra: it was in ajmer and I was in Noida

SC: we are recording that there was no formal intimation to you about the complaint

Luthra: please come to the video clarification. (reads out the transcript of the video apology which the channel ran all day)

Luthra: Devgan has recieved numerous threats on his whatsapp number and also on social media. thereafter an FIR was registered by me.

Luthra states that seven complaints were registered in Rajasthan, Telangana, Maharashtra, UP registered against Devgan. The sections invoked are sections153A, 153G, 295A, 298, 5050(2) of IPC & 66(f) of the Information Technology Act.

Justice Khanwilkar: It is incomprehensible that someone like you will not track social media. the FIR mentions that they knew about this reference to Chishti from social media and criticisms.

Luthra: I accept this from my lord. But the ink of FIR had not dried during apology

Justice Khanna: FIR is an electronic one so it just needs to be submitted

Luthra: recording takes time

Justice Khanwilkar: why are you debating this. we dont need to go into this.

Senior adv luthra: are any of the ingreditents of the offence made out here? we have to see this. None of the ingredient is not made as it was an inadvertent statement made without intent. it cannot be the basis of a criminal complaint.

Luthra: My argument is that assuming that an offence is made out, it is covered under Section 95 of IPC and i am entitled to a quashing on that ground. There cannot be multiple FIRs on the basis of same incident. it would be an abuse of the power to investigate

Luthra: jurisdiction cannot be beyond Noida where the incident took place and I cannot be dragged to any corner of the country. I must also add that MP police has already sent one FIR from Jabalpur to Noida.

Luthra: Please take a look at the counter affidavit filed by state of Telangana. the language used surprises me. Thyey said normal of criminal trial cannot be cut short in a casual manner. my point is you cannot register a FIR on this

Luthra: Now take a look at the counter filed by Rajasthan. (the senior advocate reads the counter)

Justice Kahnwilkar: why are you reading the counters? take us straight to the submissions. i understand you want to say there is no mention of mens rea in the FIRs

Luthra: absolutely not

SC: but the first FIR has a mention of intention

Luthra: the FIR is by a man who has not watched the show and was apprised by the social media

Justice Khanwilkar: he has learnt that from social media, we need to read the FIR liberally and not in a pedantic manner

Justice Khanna: Does the Itwara FIR mean that the written complaint was filed on 16th evening?

Luthra: that is a typographical error.

Luthra: what is said on social media often is toxic. what is read on social media reactions could be different .. but that does not mean it is the original content. you have seen the original content. I am saying this even though i represent a lot of social media companies

Justice Khanwilkar: in all the 5 complaints, there are allegations of intention on part of @AMISHDEVGAN

Luthra: allow me to complete the intervention of Jehangir Iqbal

Luthra: Mr Iqbal too has no direct information of the show and depends on third party info. Just becausing intention was alleged does not mean there was intent on part of Devgan.

Justice Khanwilkar: at best your case is one FIR can be quashed, others allege mens rea on your part

Luthra takes the bench through all sections of IPC invoked to show how no case is made out against @AMISHDEVGAN

Senior Adv focusses on the word "deliberate and malicious" while reading the IPC provision on outraging religious beliefs. inadvertent comment about a historical figure cannot fall under Section 295A

Luthra: mere usage of words like intent etc will not bring the act within the purview of either Section 502 or 505 of the IPC.

Luthra: Section 66F of IT Act invoked in the first FIR registered in Ajmer and then the one in Kota. It is about cyber terrorism. the common thread in all FIRs is 295A including the one which is now registered in Thane which is a new one.

Is this a case where there are ingredients of offence made out? are we on this basis allow a prosecution of a person who is a journalist...

Justice Khanna: there is no chargesheet yet Mr Luthra

Luthra now takes the bench through a bunch of judgments. Ramji lal verdict is being read.. Luthra: this is a constitution bench judgment..

Justice Khanwilkar: its three judges, how is it constitution bench

Luthra: No it is 5. Justice Khanwilkar: ohh yes it is. My mistake

Luthra: You scared the daylights out of me. I have cited this many times and though i got it grossly wrong! (smiles)

Luthra wraps up decisions on Section 153A of IPC and Section 505 IPC.

Luthra: there are two more, MS Dhoni and Balwant Singhs case.

Hearing to resume again on September 25, 10:30 am

Senior Adv Luthra to conitnue with submissions.

Hearing over for the day ****

SC hears Amish Devgan's plea against FIR for allegedly mocking Sufi saint: LIVE UPDATES
@AMISHDEVGAN #SupremeCourt
barandbench.com/news/litigatio…