SC Refuses Interim Protection To Makers Of Tandav Against Multiple FIRs

BREAKING: "YOU CANNOT HURT RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS": SUPREME COURT REFUSES INTERIM PROTECTION TO MAKERS OF TANDAV AGAINST MULTIPLE FIRS

OVERVIEW

The Supreme Court issued notices on a plea filed by the Director, Producer, Writer and Actor of Tandav web series. The plea sought for getting together and transferring of criminal proceedings initiated against them for allegedly wounding religious sentiments.

Ali Abbas Zaffar, director of the series emanated an official apology statement and two controversial scenes were cut from the show. This also became an argument as it was claimed that nothing survives in complaints as the content which was objectionable has been removed.

Interim protection to the accused persons apprehending arrest from Police departments of six states was refused by a Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subash Reddy and MR Shah.

WHAT DID THE BENCH SAY?

The Bench remarked that they cannot use power under Section 482 of CrPC and also rejected the request to quash the FIRs. It was also explained that the pendency of the petition in the SC will not be biased towards right of petitioners and they can take up the issue in related High Courts of States where complaints have been filed.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, the lawyer for actor ZeeshanAyub argues that the actor was under contract and statements made by his character cannot be ascribed to him. To this MR Shah asserted that he had accepted the contract after going through the script.

The Bench also observed that their right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute.

ON WHAT BASIS WAS PROTECTION ASKED?

The advocates of petitioners asked for interim protection as they can be arrested by six different state polices. For this, the case of Arnab Goswami was referred in which a Division bench granted interim protection to him while the matter was being heard.

The case of Amish Devgan was also referred in which the Court allowed continuation of interim protection from arrest, and FIRs were clubbed and transferred to Ajmer.

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra contented that Sections 66/67 of IT Act and Section 153A IPC cannot be applied in the case. The former deals with publishing of obscene content in electronic from and latter deals with promoting enmity between different groups.

WHAT IS YOUR VIEW REGARDING THE SAME? LET US KNOW IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!