New Delhi: “The FIR is nothing but an absurdity.”
“The FIR taken on its face value does not disclose the ingredients of any of the offences.”
It’s a “frivolous matter”.
“This is a case of persecution.”
With these remarks, the Supreme Court Thursday quashed a criminal case against a principal of Government Law College, Indore, for allegedly approving what the FIR has called a “Hinduphobic” and “anti-national” book for the college library.
Led by Justice B.R. Gavai, the SC bench also came down heavily on the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (HC) for refusing to stay the FIR. Moreover, the bench found it strange that the state appeared in the case before the issue of an official notice asking it to do so.
The SC was hearing Rahman’s appeal against an Indore HC order from 30 April when the high court refused the principal’s appeal to put the police probe against him on hold till it decided on his plea for quashing the FIR. The HC had turned down the appeal on the ground that Rahman was already on anticipatory bail and adjourned his case by 10 weeks. Police had filed the FIR against Rahman earlier in December 2022.
Disapproving the HC’s ruling, the SC bench said, “The jurisdiction of the HC under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc) is to prevent abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice.” CrPc Section 482 empowers the HC to quash non-compoundable criminal cases.
“We find that even in such frivolous matters, the learned single judge of the High Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him,” the SC bench said in its order.
Invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142, the SC then quashed the FIR. This came after it noticed the state’s additional advocate general — the highest law officer appearing in the apex court on behalf of the state — in court to oppose Rahman’s appeal. The state had filed a caveat in the case so it could appear on the first date of the hearing without even waiting for a formal notice.
At the outset, the court orally questioned the state’s “interest”, which, it said, was evident from the presence of MP’s high-ranking law officer.
“Why is the state interested in getting an additional advocate general to appear in such a matter? That too on caveat? Clearly, it seems to be a case of persecution! Somebody is interested in troubling him (Rahman). We will issue a notice against the IO (investigation officer). Why is the state interested in filing a caveat?” the bench asked the state’s counsel.
“If this book is there in the Supreme Court library, would you register a case?” the bench further asked the state’s counsel.
Then, it went on record with its displeasure regarding the state’s role.
“Normally, in such a matter, we would have granted notice and stayed the FIR. However, since the state has chosen to file a caveat and appear through the learned additional advocate general, we are inclined to grant leave in the matter,” the judges said in the order.
Also read: ‘Vote Jihad’ or ‘Ram Rajya’ — Modi asks people to choose at Madhya Pradesh rally
Rahman ‘due to retire 31 May’
According to Rahman’s appeal, the allegations against him in the FIR are part of an attempt to deny him his pension and other retirement benefits. Having spent three-and-a-half decades in academics, Rahman said he has had an impeccable career.
Speaking with ThePrint, his lawyer, Aljo K. Joseph, said, “He is due to retire from service 31 May 2024 and, therefore, we had asked the HC to stay the police probe until it decides Rahman’s petition in which he sought the quashing of the case.”
The FIR against Rahman came at the behest of a 28-year-old LLM student of the college, who, in his 1 December 2022 complaint to the police, claimed that the book, ‘Collective Violence and Criminal Justice System’, authored by scholar Farhat Khan and published by Amar Law Publication, is anti-national and intends to harm the public peace, the integrity of the nation, and religious cordiality. Khan and the publisher were named as accused.
Rahman’s appeal said he received a complaint about the book in the library and initiated an inquiry. He later ordered the librarian to remove the book and keep it in safe custody, it said.
Moreover, Rahman, in his statement to the higher education department of the state government after the complaint, also disclosed that the book was purchased five years before he joined the college in 2019, said the appeal.
However, within two days, the police had registered an FIR against Rahman and others.
Joseph said it was the second time that the principal approached the top court for relief. He first moved it in December 2022 for protection from arrest after the HC declined his plea for anticipatory bail, with the HC granting him bail subsequently. This time, he pleaded for halting the police probe.
However, the “absurdity” of the allegations prompted the SC bench of justices Gavai and Mehta to take the extreme step of quashing the case from its end only.
“We have seen the syllabus which has been approved by the academic council. The syllabus contains a subject on collective violence and criminal justice system,” said the bench, adding, “This is a fit case where the court would exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 and close the proceedings to prevent abuse of law and miscarriage of justice. Allowing the appeal, we therefore quash and set aside the FIR.”
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also read: ‘Mama will protect you’—Shivraj Singh Chouhan had positioned himself as the un-Modi BJP CM