The Supreme Court has expressed concern over the multiple FIRs registered across various States against Sharjeel Imam for a single speech, suggesting that simultaneous prosecutions may warrant a stay to prevent procedural inconsistency.

The observation came while the Court was hearing Imam’s plea seeking consolidation of several FIRs filed in different States—including Assam, Manipur, Uttar Pradesh, and Arunachal Pradesh—over a speech delivered at Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University.

The speech, which is publicly available online, is alleged to have incited communal unrest and is already the basis of multiple pending cases in Delhi.

Appearing for Imam, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave argued that the petitioner is facing prosecutorial harassment by being subjected to repeated litigations for the same act.

“For one case, can there be 500 prosecutions?” he asked, contending that multiple trials for the same alleged offence violate the principles of double jeopardy and procedural fairness. He urged the Court to intervene ahead of the summer recess.

Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju maintained that although the speech is identical, its impact manifested differently in each State, leading to distinct instances of public disorder. As such, he argued that separate prosecutions were legally justified.

However, the Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar appeared inclined to examine the broader legal question of whether a single act—widely circulated through platforms like YouTube—can give rise to multiple prosecutions in different jurisdictions.

CJI Khanna noted, “We can stay trial in other cases of States... Manipur, Arunachal, UP... and let it go in Delhi?” suggesting that the Delhi proceedings might serve as the principal trial, with others paused in the interim.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court granted ASG Raju time to file relevant judicial precedents and directed that the matter be listed again after two weeks. “Okay, file your submissions. List it after two weeks. Let it remain on board,” the Court said, deferring a final decision until all submissions are complete.