Supreme Court hears plea to quash FIRs against the makers of Tandav web series [LIVE UPDATES]

The Supreme Court Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan is hearing the moved by the plea by director, producer and actors of the Amazon web-series Tandav to quash multiple FIRs initiated against them for allegedly hurting religious sentiments..Plea filed in Supreme Court by Tandav creators, Amazon Prime India Head to quash criminal proceedings.Live updates. ofthe hearing today feauture on this page..Senior Advocate Fali Nariman: Apologies have been made. There are seven more FIRs have been filed.. .Justice Bhushan: You want the FIRs to be quashed. But why can't you approach the High Courts.Senior Advocate Nariman: It's in 6 States. We have removed the objectionable content and still there are cases being filed .Supreme Court: But why Article 32 petitions?.Senior Advocate Nariman: Either there is Article 19 (1) (a) or there is no such guarantee. Justice MR Shah: Police can file closure reports too if apologies have been made and content removed.Senior Advocate Nariman: But six high courts.Senior Adv Mukul Rohatgi: In Arnab Goswami case it has been established that after a violation of Article 19(1)(a) we can move Supreme Court. Party is in Mumbai, how many States will they go and defend themselves in 6 states..Rohatgi: People get offended with anything and everything these days. Please protect us with no coercive steps. We deleted content without any protest. Scenes have been deleted. Its a political satire..Rohatgi: People are so sensitive in this country then 19 (1)(a) would be destroyed. Arnab Goswami was also protected.Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra: The director of the show is being harassed. The situation is such .Justice MR Shah: Your right to freedom of speech is not absolute. Its subjected to restrictions..Luthra: Is this way liberty is protected in the country and FIRs are registered?.Matter resumes after lunch..Senior Advocate Luthra: Let me show how this is not a tenable exercise of power. .Senior Advocate Luthra reading the contents of the FIR. He states how certain scenes were seen where Hindu deities were not portrayed in a proper manner. .Luthra: Please see the IT act. They have invoked Section 66 which deals with offendes regarding tampering of computer record.Justice MR Shah: How can we decide under Article 32 if an offence has been committed now ? .Luthra: This is a question of liberty, My Lords .Senior Advocate Luthra reads the plea substantiating how the court can be approached when their is an infraction of fundamental rights and how doctrine of natural justice ensures a fair opportunity.Luthra: The principle laid down in TT Anthony case has been destroyed. I am being dragged all across the country and persecuted. There are multiple FIRs against me .Senior Advocate Luthra reads the judgment delivered in the Amish Devgan case where an interim protection was granted to the journalist who too was facing multiple FIRs for hurting religious sentiments. Further Luthra reads the final order of consolidation of FIRs in Ajmer..Luthra: This is an analytical serial about political and social issue. When objection was taken we deleted the scenes. Amazon and other OTT platforms are not like Doordarshan etc, it based on choice and consent where I see only when I agree to watch a political satire for example.Bench discusses among themselves. Reads a judgment..Senior Advocate Luthra: Please look at the nature of excercise of power. Please take a look at two judgments..Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal appears for Mohd. Zeeshan Ayyub: I am an actor who was contracted to play a character. Views ascribed on screen cannot be prescribed to me in person.Justice Shah: You cannot take up role without reading script... you cannot play role hurting religious sentiments of others .Aggarwal: If an offence has been committed, it will be probed once and consolidated once..Senior Advocate Rohatgi: In Arnab Goswami case all, four related complaints were quashed and kept only the primary complaint was kept alive following TT Anthony case .Justice Shah: This Goswami order was considered by another bench and FIR was not quashed.Justice MR Shah: I am a party to that judgment. We know .Rohatgi: That judgment has not been overruled. It is a final order. Please don't send us to several States..Rohatgi: At the end of the day this is a single offence. If a murder is reported for 100 times then there cannot be 100 offences. It is a genuine innocent case. Every day there is a FIR. where will a man go? At least club them in one place. This is not a transfer plea..Rohatgi: This case will put a lot of people under great harassment. Article 19(1)(a) was completely brushed away. .Senior Advocate Luthra seeks permission to read the principle laid down in TT Anthony case..Luthra: On first issue there are two scenarios. Even based on TT Anthony case and Amish Devgan case, there cannot be multiple FIRs..Supreme Court bench asks the senior lawyer to stop and discuses among themselves..Justice MR Shah: We may consider the request for clubbing the FIRs. .Rohatgi: please grant us no coercive step order, club it and issue notice to the parties.. Justice Shah: We cannot take the power of the High Court under CrPC.Rohatgi: Grant us protection. Give us seven days. We will put all documents before you .Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra reads the Amish Devgan judgment..Luthra: I am showing this judgment for my satisfaction .Justice MR Shah: We are sitting here for your satisfaction only..Supreme Court: This was stayed? .Luthra: Amish Devgan is 2021 1 SCC (citation) and is a final judgment. It is not stayed.Supreme Court: Let notice be issued. Petitioners not precluded from approaching High Courts for anticipatory bail. .Senior Advocate Fali Nariman requests for an order of no coercive action. .Supreme Court refuses to grant relief: "Approach High Court"

Supreme Court hears plea to quash FIRs against the makers of Tandav web series [LIVE UPDATES]

Related Stories