Supreme Court reserves judgment in a plea to quash FIR against Amish Devgan, Maharashtra calls journalist a “habitual offender”

A two-judge bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna today reserved judgment in the plea by journalist Amish Devgan seeking to quash FIRs registered against him after he referred to Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti, a sufi saint, as a “ lootera ” in one of his shows.

. Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, arguing for Devgan, submitted that there was no “incitement of hate” or any attempt to “instigate a particular community against the other.”

. One of the primary contentions before the Bench concerned whether there was “ mens rea ” in the act of citing Khwaja Chishti’s name on the show.

.SC hears Amish Devgan's Plea challenging FIRs for alleged defamation of Sufi Saint: LIVE UPDATES . Luthra contended that there was no intention or malice and also that none of the FIRs alleges any mens rea on part of the petitioner.

. However, the Supreme Court noted that the FIRs had indeed spoken about deliberate intent and that “ even one word has the potential of disrupting the public order .”

. Senior Advocate Luthra further stated that Devgan would be entitled to a benefit under Section 95 of the IPC as the inadvertent slip of the tongue that led to taking the Sufi Saint’s name could only have caused “slight harm.”

. To substantiate this, Luthra had submitted a catena of judgments.

. The Bench also pondered upon whether the apology tendered by Devgan over twitter and by a video message was an afterthought following criticism on social media or whether it was an honest face-saving exercise.

.No coercive action against Journalist Amish Devgan till first week of July in FIRs for comments against Sufi Saint: Supreme Court. Luthra submitted that the show was aired on June 16 and by June 17, 12 am, the apology was tendered.

. However the Bench stated that the FIR was already registered before the apology. To this, Luthra responded that “ the ink of the FIR had not dried by the time apology was tendered. ”

. Justice Khanna remarked that there was no question of ink, since it was an electronic FIR.

. Referring to the first FIR in Ajmer, Luthra submitted that the complainant in Ajmer had himself not watched the show and only went by what people commented about it. This served to lead the Bench to observe that there was indeed criticism about the show before the apology was tendered.

.Journalist Amish Devgan moves Supreme Court to quash FIR lodged against him for insulting Sufi saint, calls it an "inadvertent error". Senior Advocate Dr Manish Singhvi appearing for the State of Rajasthan submitted that rather than quashing FIR, whether the apology was an afterthought or not should be investigated.

. “ Prima facie case is made out which requires further investigation. Section 95 is not applicable as it is not a case of slight harm. People have lodged FIR as they are deeply hurt. It is not a case where people are extra sensitive like the MS Dhoni case ,” submitted Singhvi.

. Elaborating on Section 295A of IPC, Singhvi stated that ingredients such as hurt of religious sentiment, malicious intent, number of people affected, and not a case of slight were all satisfied ingredients in the case.

. One of the suggestions by the Bench which found favour among the complainants were that if one FIR is kept alive and all others are made witness statements under Section 162 of CrPC, then not only probe can be carried out but a multiplicity of proceedings can be avoided.

. “ There is a case of double jeopardy too if multiple FIRs are allowed to go on ,” said Justice Khanwilkar.

. Senior lawyer Sushil Jain appearing for the complainant in the Ajmer case stated that the debate was not "controlled" by Devgan and that "it was in violation with the program code" as under the Cable TV Network Regulation Act.

. However the Bench was not inclined to venture into merits of the arguments advanced as it only sought to limit itself to the mention of the name of Khwaja Chishti.

. Advocate Swati Bhardwaj for the State of Telangana stated that there was indeed "men's rea" in the FIR. While reading the FIR registered in the state, the lawyer stated how it mentions there how the Sufi saint was " intentionally dishonoured ."

. " FIR reads that Syed Qadir Moinuddin lodged a complaint on June 17 representing several Muslim and Sufi organisations stating that they were shocked to know that Amish Devgan intentionally dishonoured Khwaja Chishti, " stated Bhardwaj.

. Advocate Rizwan Merchant for Maharashtra calling Devgan a habitual offender and stated that after the show was telecasted, the YouTube version of the show had the reference to Khwaja Chishti deleted and thereby referred to a possible " tampering of evidence " by Amish Devgan.

. "This is not a case of slight harm. Media in pursuit of investigative journalism stretches the powers given to them and ventures into domain which can be avoided. That is why program code needs adherence. Amish Devgan is a habitual offender and can never be stopped. Your Lordships cannot enquire into the offence and the probe needs to be there. If there is no evidence then it can be closed but there needs to be a probe." argued Merchant . Merchant further submitted on how the Sufi saint is revered across all faiths. This drew a reaction from the Bench that it was indeed an example of the "culture" of India.

. The top Court while reserving the judgment has given one week to Amish Devgan to file written submissions following which another week has been given to the complainants to file a reply.