‘You can’t damage non secular sentiments’: SC rejects Tandav plea for reduction from arrest

The Supreme Court Wednesday declined to grant interim safety from arrest to the makers of the Amazon net collection Tandav, who’re dealing with prices of wounding non secular sentiments, however agreed to contemplate their plea for clubbing of FIRs registered in several states.
“Approach High Court,” a bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and M R Shah stated as Senior Advocate Fali S Nariman, showing for the petitioners, urged the bench to direct that no coercive motion be taken towards the petitioners. The bench additionally issued discover on the prayer to membership the FIRs pending in several states.
The bench didn’t appear to agree with advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, counsel for Tandav actor Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub, who contended that the statements of the character can’t be attributed to the actor in particular person.
To this, Justice Shah stated that the actor wouldn’t have accepted the position with out studying the script and added, “you cannot hurt religious sentiments of others”.
Nariman identified that the objectionable elements, which allegedly damage non secular sentiments, have been eliminated and an apology tendered. Despite this, seven extra FIRs have been filed even after that, he stated.
The bench identified that the prayer was for quashing the FIRs and sought to know why he was not approaching the excessive courts.
The senior counsel replied that the FIRs had been in six states “and it’s increasing every day”.
Justice Shah remarked that police can file a closure report if the content material has been eliminated and the apology tendered.
Emphasising that it was a case of free speech beneath Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, Nariman referred to Republic TV Editor-In-Chief Arnab Goswami’s case through which the SC had clubbed the FIRs pending in several states.
Agreeing with Nariman, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, showing for Amazon India Creative Head Aparna Purohit, stated, “(The show) is a political satire. If people are so sensitive… then art, cinema, TV, all will be destroyed.” Article 19(1)(a) is essentially the most zealously guarded proper and should be protected as was held within the Goswami case too, he urged.
Urging the bench to a minimum of merge all FIRs, he recalled that the courtroom had accomplished so within the M F Husain case through which he had appeared. “The petitioners reside in Bombay. Why will they go to different states?” Rohatgi stated and added that the courtroom had in Goswami’s case held that in case of violation of 19(1)(a), the aggrieved occasion might method the courtroom.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, showing for the producer, director and scriptwriter of Tandav, additionally sought to underline the Article 19(1)(a) argument however the bench advised him, “Your right to freedom of speech is not absolute.”
As Luthra referred to the contents of the FIR, the bench questioned the way it might determine in an Article 32 writ petition whether or not an offence has been made out or not.
Stating that it concerned questions of liberty and pure justice, Luthra referred to the SC order defending journalist Amish Devgan from coercive motion in FIRs filed towards him in several states and consolidating the FIRs.
Tandav, argued Luthra, is an analytical serial about political and social points. The makers deleted the scenes when objections had been made, he stated, including that on Amazon and different OTT platforms, an individual sees one thing solely when she or he agrees to look at it.
The circumstances towards its makers, he argued, “is persecution not prosecution”.
Rohatgi reiterated that in Goswami’s case, solely the first grievance was stored alive and others had been quashed in accordance with the judgment within the 2001 SC judgment in T T Antony Vs State of Kerala and Others on avoiding a number of FIRs the place the allegations are the identical.
But Justice Shah advised him that the Goswami case was thought of by one other bench of which he too was an element and the FIR was not quashed.
Urging the courtroom to membership the FIRs, Rohatgi stated this case will put lots of people beneath nice harassment. “Article 19(1)(a) was completely brushed away”.