The Supreme Court of India, in proceedings spanning February to March 2023, ordered the clubbing and transfer of multiple First Information Reports registered against Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera in Assam and Uttar Pradesh to Hazratganj Police Station in Lucknow. A Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud directed that FIRs registered in Varanasi and Dima Hasao district in Assam be consolidated at the place where the first FIR was lodged, following the established practice of clubbing multiple FIRs arising from a single incident.
Background
The FIRs were registered following remarks made by Pawan Khera at a press conference in Mumbai on 17 February 2023, in which he allegedly mispronounced the Prime Minister's name. Multiple FIRs were subsequently lodged at police stations in Lucknow, Varanasi, and Assam under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 relating to promoting enmity between groups and outraging religious feelings.
On 23 February 2023, Assam police arrested Khera at the Delhi airport in connection with the Assam FIR. The Supreme Court intervened to grant interim bail the same day and subsequently extended interim protection while considering the petition for clubbing and transfer. A report from the National Legal Services Authority indicated that the proliferation of FIRs across multiple states for a single set of remarks raised concerns about the use of criminal process as a tool of harassment.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court's directions addressed the following:
Clubbing at first FIR jurisdiction: Following established precedent, the Court directed that all FIRs be clubbed and transferred to the police station where the first FIR was registered, which was Hazratganj Police Station in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
Single investigation: The Court directed that a single consolidated investigation be conducted rather than parallel investigations in multiple states, recognising the fundamental principle that one incident should not result in multiple prosecutions across jurisdictions.
Interim protection: The Court extended interim protection against arrest until 10 April 2023, ensuring that the petitioner was not subjected to custodial action during the pendency of the transfer process.
Article 21 considerations: The Court's order was informed by the settled principle that registration of multiple FIRs across different states for the same transaction constitutes an abuse of the criminal process and violates the personal liberty guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Implications for Practitioners
This order reinforces the well-established jurisprudence against multiple FIRs for the same offence, which has become increasingly relevant in the age of social media and press conferences that generate content simultaneously accessible across jurisdictions. Defence counsel representing individuals facing FIRs in multiple states for online or broadcast statements should take note of this order as a recent application of the clubbing principle.
The practical challenge remains the speed of response required. In this case, the petitioner was arrested before the Supreme Court could intervene, highlighting the need for anticipatory measures when comments attract multi-state FIR lodging. Practitioners should consider pre-emptive applications for quashing or clubbing when clients face the prospect of FIRs in multiple jurisdictions.
The order also raises broader questions about the interface between free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the criminal law provisions invoked, though the Court did not address the merits of the underlying offences in this procedural order.