SC refuses to grant interim protection from arrest to Tandav makers, actors

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday not only refused to quash the seven FIRS registered against the actors, makers and streaming platform Amazon Prime’s India head of the web series Tandav across the country, for allegedly hurting religious feelings, but also shot down their plea seeking interim protection from arrest.

Observing that it had to “strike a balance,” the court emphasised that freedom of speech is not an absolute right and that no actor can hide behind a script and a role to escape culpability under the law.

The SC bench, headed by justice Ashok Bhushan, further declined to rely on its previous judgments preventing the arrests of journalists Arnab Goswami and Amish Devgan, stating that Tandav actor Zeeshan Ayyub and other petitioners should rather approach high courts -- at least five different ones -- to seek quashing of the FIRS and for pre-arrest bail.

The bench formally rejected the plea made by Bollywood actor Ayyub, Amazon Prime (India) creative head Aparna Purohit, Tandav director Ali Abbas Zafar, its producer Himanshu Kishan Mehra and writer Gaurav Solanki, seeking a stay on the FIRS and prevention of arrest till the matter was finally decided by the top court.

“We don’t see any grounds to grant interim relief,” said the bench in its order, clarifying that the top court would only consider clubbing the seven FIRS at one place.

Importantly, the rejection of the plea exposes all the actors, including Saif Ali Khan, and others associated with the series to the possibility of arrest in any state where an FIR is pending against them.

Senior advocates Fali S Nariman, Mukul Rohatgi and Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the petitioners pleaded for an interim order to ward off the possibility of the arrest of their clients, who have had FIRS and criminal complaints registered against them in four states and two Union Territories -- Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Bihar, Maharashtra, Delhi and Chandigarh. The senior counsel repeatedly cited the apex court’s orders in cases of Arnab Goswami and Amish Devgan; the two were protected from arrest after several FIRS were registered against them over same allegations. Luthra, on his part, pointed out that he was the lawyer for Devgan and the court had then passed the order of protection from arrest on the very first day of the hearing.

But the bench, which also included justices R Subhas Reddy and MR Shah, was unmoved: “Every case has different facts. We cannot examine your petitions under Article 32 (writ jurisdiction) to decide whether any offences were made out or not. It is for the police to do.” Nariman and Rohatgi sought to highlight the right to free speech and creative freedom, contending that actors, painters and poets are all facing threats due to the registration of FIRS against them in an indiscriminate manner.

The court, however, retorted: “Your right to free speech is not absolute. It cannot be at the cost of violating others’ rights.”

Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, representing Ayyub, tried to distinguish the actor’s role from others by arguing that he was only playing a role as characterised by the script.

The bench was quick to dismiss this argument: “When you (Ayyub) accepted this role, you must have read the script. You cannot play a role with a script that hurts religious sentiments of others. You cannot escape responsibility.”

The court then issued notices to the state governments and the complainants only on the point of clubbing of all FIRS at one place, and posted the matter for hearing after two weeks.