Breaking: Supreme Court refuses to quash FIRs filed against Amish Devgan, interim protection to continue

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to quash the First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against television anchor Amish Devgan for hurting religious sentiments after he used the words 'Lootera Chishti’ while referring to the Sufi saint Moinuddin Chishti in one of his TV debates. .The Court also directed that all the FIRs filed against Devgan in different States be transferred to the police station in Ajmer.."We do not think it would be appropriate at this stage to quash the FIRs and thus stall the investigation into all the relevant aspects.We do not find any good ground or special reason to transfer the FIRs to Noida, Uttar Pradesh," the Court held..The top court also said that "freedom and rights cannot extend to create public disorder or armour those who challenge integrity and unity of the country or promote and incite violence.".The interim protection from arrest granted earlier to the anchor will continue subject to his joining the investigation, the court added. .The order was pronounced by a Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna in Devgan's plea to quash the FIRs registered against him after he referred to Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti as a “lootera” in one of his shows..Freedom and rights cannot extend to create public disorder or incite violence.Supreme Court.Several FIRs were lodged against Amish Devgan in Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Telangana after he used a derogatory term for the Sufi saint on his debate news show called Aar Paar aired on June 15 this year.The FIRS were registered for offences under Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on the ground of religion) and 295A (hurting religious beliefs).Devgan had later tweeted an apology saying that he was actually referring to Muslim ruler Alauddin Khilji and inadvertently ended up naming Chishti instead. The channel had also carried a video clarification featuring the journalist. .The anchor had moved the Supreme Court, seeking quashing of the FIRs, stay on the investigation, and protection from any coercive action for his alleged comments. .He had claimed before the Court that his life and liberty were at at stake. "In a well-orchestrated manner, the petitioner has been made a victim of country-wide filing of false and baseless criminal complaint and FIRs on the one hand, and on the other hand, petitioner, his family and his crew has been abused unabashedly on social media and by personal messages by unknown persons......The petitioner has also received several death threats from various anti-social elements..." his petition before Supreme Court said. .During the course of the hearings, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, arguing for Devgan, had submitted that there was no “incitement of hate” or any attempt to “instigate a particular community against the other.”.Luthra further argued that Devgan would be entitled to the benefit under Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as the inadvertent slip of the tongue that led to taking the Sufi saint’s name could only have caused “slight harm.”.Supreme Court reserves judgment in a plea to quash FIR against Amish Devgan, Maharashtra calls journalist a “habitual offender”.The Supreme Court, in its judgment on Monday, said that without acceptable public order, "freedom to speak and express is challenged and would get restricted for the common masses and law-abiding citizens.".In a polity committed to pluralism, hate speech cannot conceivably contribute in any legitimate way to democracy.Supreme Court.The two-judge bench also noted that the "dignity of citizens of all castes, creed, religion and region is best protected by the fellow citizens belonging to non-targeted groups and even targeted groups"."In a polity committed to pluralism, hate speech cannot conceivably contribute in any legitimate way to democracy and, in fact,repudiates the right to equality," the judgment said..The top court had granted protection to Devgan from any coercive action in connection with the FIRs. This protection was subsequently extended from time to time..[Read judgment]