Lucknow: A Supreme Court bench Monday refused to club multiple FIRs filed across states against the Johar Chhattisgarh Party (JCP) chief over his alleged derogatory remarks on the Sindhi community and its deity.
More than a dozen FIRs were filed against JCP President Amit Baghel in Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Chhattisgarh, among other states, after his alleged derogatory comments last month.
A bench led by Justice Vikram Nath said that a distinct cause of action behind each FIR made consolidation legally untenable, even if the allegations sounded similar. Justice Nath told Amit Baghel to “enjoy traveling all over the country”, underscoring that all cases would continue in their respective jurisdictions.
The decision added yet another layer of uncertainty over the court’s already uneven jurisprudence on when multiple FIRs arising from the same or related conduct can be combined for a single trial to avoid instances of double jeorpardy. The Supreme Court’s mixed decisions in recent years reveal a deeper challenge: balancing protection to the accused from repetitive criminal proceedings and logistical pressures as well as the fundamental rights of victims spread across different states.
The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) does not contain a clear rule on this, and the court has been asked to interpret the issue repeatedly.
Case-specific approach
In November 2023, a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan refused to club FIRs against a petitioner, who was booked separately under the IPC and the state’s investor-protection laws, signalling that proceedings under distinct statutory frameworks cannot be casually merged.
Adding another layer, Section 242 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha (BNSS), 2023, now permits up to five similar offences committed within a year to be tried together. Though this does not resolve the issue of multi-state FIRs, it reflects growing concern about the burden of repeated prosecutions.
The Supreme Court’s approach to multiple FIRs shows no one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, it reveals nuanced distinctions based on factual causation, victims’ rights, state jurisdiction and the nature of the alleged offence.
As a result, what emerges is a careful, case-specific approach rather than a uniform rule, leaving FIR-clubbing jurisprudence in a state of cautious evolution.
In speech-related cases, for instance, the court has leaned towards protecting individuals from repetitive criminal processes. In multi-state fraud cases, it has emphasised the separateness of victims and the territorial prerogatives of the states.
Test of sameness
The leading precedent on this issue remains the 2001 T.T. Antony vs State of Kerala—where the Supreme Court held that a second FIR cannot be filed unless the events giving rise to it are materially different in facts, circumstances, nature of offence, or accused persons.
The “test of sameness” prohibits two investigating agencies from probing what is essentially the same incident, even if multiple accused are involved.
In this case, the court heard arguments that a second FIR could violate the principle of double jeopardy and that the law generally bars multiple FIRs for the same offence.
This principle was further reinforced in the 2022 Navika Kumar vs Union of India case, where the court held that separate investigative tracks cannot operate simultaneously if they arise from the same occurrence.
The Bombay High Court’s ruling in the 2020 Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs Union of India case echoed this view, finding that multiple FIRs arising from one broadcast constituted an abuse of process. Except for counter-cases—the court held—fresh FIRs on the same allegations should ordinarily be quashed to prevent harassment through multiplicity of proceedings.
Similarly, in the 2022 Mohd. Zubair vs State of NCT Delhi, the petitioner argued that identical tweets had triggered several FIRs across states, trapping him in a cycle of repeated bail applications, investigations and travel, illustrating how the “process becomes the punishment”.
Cascading FIRs
The strain between free speech and criminal law surfaced again in March this year, when Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh heard podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia’s plea for protection from multiple FIRs over a remark made on Samay Raina’s YouTube show India’s Got Latent.
Although Allahbadia had already been permitted to resume The Ranveer Show, complaints continued to be filed.
The court eventually granted him interim protection and stayed any fresh FIRs based on the same allegations, reflecting judicial awareness of how easily speech by public figures can lead to a flood of complaints across states
Financial crimes
A significant attempt to consolidate principles came in May 2025 in the Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab case. Sidhu, the managing director of KIM Infrastructure, had been in custody since 2018 due to multiple FIRs across states, involving alleged fraudulent land-allotment schemes.
The court held that multiple proceedings for the same alleged act are against the public interest. It directed that all FIRs within the same state must be clubbed, with the earliest FIR treated like a Section 161 CrPC statement. Supplementary charge sheets could then be filed based on evidence from related cases.
However, it clarified that bail granted for IPC offences does not automatically extend to cases under special statutes.
The ruling was seen as a major attempt to streamline multi-state investigations in financial fraud matters.
Also Read: What plea in SC contends against 2023 Uttar Pradesh law abating trials under Motor Vehicles Act
Contrasting positions
But uniformity was short-lived. In October 2025, a bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai refused to merge FIRs in another investor fraud matter, calling the request “overambitious and outright illegal”.
The court held that full consolidation would impose unreasonable burdens on victims and witnesses having to travel across states for a combined trial.
It authorised clubbing in Telangana and Maharashtra only. Meanwhile, the FIRs in Karnataka, West Bengal, Delhi and Andhra Pradesh were allowed to proceed independently. It also reiterated that courts cannot bar future FIRs.
Drawing a line
Just a month earlier, in September 2025, the Supreme Court clarified this boundary in Odela Satyam vs State of Telangana.
While the accused was alleged to have used a common method to defraud investors across states, the court held that each FIR related to a separate incident—distinct victims, separate losses, separate transactions—despite a similar pattern.
This stood in contrast to Amish Devgan, where all FIRs arose from a single televised statement. As Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that the offence in Devgan was “one objectionable statement telecast on a television show”, whereas Odela Satyam involved “multiple independent offences”.
The court allowed clubbing only within Madhya Pradesh, while FIRs in Karnataka, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan continued independently. It also ordered travel and accommodation support for witnesses testifying outside their states.
Not a doctrinal shift
Legal practitioners say the Supreme Court’s refusal to club the FIRs against the JCP president should not be read as a departure from precedent, but rather as a straightforward application of the existing framework.
Urja Pandey, advocate at the Supreme Court, told ThePrint that by refusing consolidation across states where complaints involved distinct facts, complainants, statutory laws, and evidence, the court preserved the principle that “each FIR must proceed independently to ensure each grievance is properly investigated”.
“This preserves the balance between procedural efficiency and the complainants’ right to individual access to justice, while preventing unjust consolidation that might prejudice the investigation or deprive complainants of a forum,” she added.
She added that the ruling “should be viewed as a reaffirmation of established criminal jurisprudence and not a doctrinal shift”.
“The court applied the long-standing ‘test of sameness,’ holding that clubbing is legally justified only when FIRs arise from the same incident or transaction,” Pandey said.
She also said the judgment upholds fundamentals of criminal jurisprudence—protecting jurisdictional integrity, complainants’ rights, and ensuring that consolidation remains an exception, not a rule.
Supreme Court lawyer Nipun Saxena backed the decision, saying the law on multiple FIRs permits clubbing—only when all complaints arise out of the same transaction or scheme.
“If it arises out of the same scheme or same transaction—say, for instance, in Sharda scam or in multi-crore scams where public money is involved and multiple people residing in different states file FIRs—then courts usually pass an order to consolidate those FIRs,” he explained.
But this is conditional: the offence invoked must be the same or similar, the incident must stem from the same transaction, and “of course [involve] the same set of accused persons”.
“Unless and until these three conditions are met, clubbing may or may not take place.”
Also Read: ‘You insulted your own troops’: Why SC upheld sacking of Army officer over Sarv Dharm Sthal ceremony
Consolidation powers
Saxena noted that while consolidation powers exist in the CrPC itself, particularly in complaint cases where parallel police investigations may be underway, the discretion ultimately lies with magistrates, high courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226, 142, and 32. Consolidation by the apex court, he added, typically happens only in multi-state cases.
But Saxena cautioned that this discretion under Article 32 has become increasingly inconsistent.
“The problem with 32 is that it is discretionary… In some cases where there are multi-crore scams or in free speech cases where the court feels tremendous prejudice to the accused, it may designate one court, say Bombay or Delhi, to carry out everything,” he said.
“But then let’s also look at the flip side: if someone living in Chhattisgarh files an FIR, is it fair to make them travel to Delhi to give a deposition?”
He pointed out that such consolidations start resembling transfers of criminal proceedings, something strictly governed by Section 406 of the CrPC.
A transfer, he said, is justified only in exceptional circumstances, such as complete loss of faith in the local police or courts.
“The threshold is far higher than civil proceedings,” Saxena said.
The issue of witnesses
Criminal transfers have to take into account that trials rely heavily on witnesses, who cannot be expected to travel across the country, often facing language barriers that disrupt both examination and the judge’s ability to intervene meaningfully.
Saxena said the tension was especially acute in free speech and defamation matters, where a single article or remark could lead to dozens of FIRs in different states, sometimes triggered by translated versions of the original content.
“That must not result in a defamation or hate-speech scenario,” he cautioned.
On possible safeguards, Saxena suggested that the stage of investigation should matter.
Stage of investigation
“If the FIRs are fresh, nascent, and no substantive progress has been made… then by all means, transfer it then and there, keeping in mind similarity of accused and other safeguards,” he said.
But where charge sheets have been filed or trials have begun, “courts must examine with greater scrutiny” whether consolidation would undermine fairness, especially in cases involving witnesses who speak only regional languages.
In such situations, he said, consolidation can be prejudicial both to accused persons, who may not understand proceedings or witness testimony, and to complainants and witnesses, whose ability to participate meaningfully is compromised.
The task for courts, therefore, is to “carve out a midway” that balances the accused’s right to a fair trial with the need for an effective prosecution.
“In many defamation and hate-speech matters, multiple FIRs arise out of translated versions. The man did not even say those words,” Saxena added. “Probably AI. Google translates.”
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: Why SC has offered to wipe slate clean for Sandesara brothers if they deposit Rs 5,100 cr by Dec 17