Former UP Shia Waqf Board chief Jitendra Narayan Tyagi (formerly Wasim Rizvi) has approached the Supreme Court seeking the clubbing of multiple criminal cases filed against him in Uttarakhand and Jammu & Kashmir for alleged hate speeches and derogatory remarks against Islam and the Muslim community.

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta on Friday issued notices to the governments of Uttarakhand and the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, asking for a reply within four weeks.

Tyagi, who is facing at least four separate cases, including FIRs and private complaints, has requested that all proceedings be consolidated at a single location, citing grave security threats if he is forced to travel, especially to Jammu & Kashmir. In his plea, he stated that he has only two security guards despite “serious life threats” and that “appearing before the courts in J&K could be fatal.”

During the hearing, Tyagi’s lawyer Anurag Kishore sought interim protection from the court, citing life threats. However, the bench declined the request, remarking that “threats exist everywhere.”

Initially hesitant, the court agreed to examine the plea and issue formal notices to the respective state authorities.

Background of the cases

Tyagi is currently facing multiple criminal proceedings:

An FIR in Haridwar for allegedly making defamatory remarks about Prophet Muhammad during the release of his book Muhammad in June 2021.

A private complaint in Srinagar, J&K, over alleged insulting remarks against Islam made in a July 2021 TV broadcast from Lucknow.

An FIR in Haridwar from December 2021 for statements made at the Dharma Sansad, a religious event.

A third FIR in January 2022 also in Uttarakhand, based on similar allegations.

Tyagi, who converted from Islam to Hinduism, has been a controversial figure and has previously made inflammatory remarks, triggering legal and public backlash.

His legal team, comprising Anurag Kishore, Lakhan Kumar Mishra, and Ritika Shrivastava, argued that the multiplicity of cases and summons across different states poses not only a logistical burden but also a serious threat to his safety.

A fresh controversy erupted in the Delhi Assembly on Friday after Chief Minister Rekha Gupta referred to Delhi police personnel as “thulla” during a speech, drawing sharp criticism from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). The opposition party accused the BJP of hypocrisy, claiming its leaders had previously condemned similar language used by others.

During a discussion in the Assembly, Gupta narrated an incident about a theft at a ration shop, criticizing police response time. “The police arrived late, just like Punjab’s police. Do thulle (two cops) stood here, two there, surrounding the area,” she said. The term “thulla,” considered a derogatory slang for police in North India, immediately drew attention.

AAP swiftly shared a video clip of the remarks on social media, questioning the lack of backlash. “BJP’s CM called policemen ‘thulla’ today, yet the Speaker didn’t object. Had another leader said this, the BJP would have created a nationwide uproar,” the party stated.

AAP leaders highlighted the contrast in reactions, recalling when Delhi’s former CM Arvind Kejriwal faced criticism for using the same term in 2023. “Back then, the BJP demanded apologies and filed cases. Today, silence,” said AAP Delhi chief Saurabh Bharadwaj.

He also accused the BJP government of supporting corruption and those involved in it. “Ongoing corruption cases against officials were being addressed in the committees and courts of the Delhi Assembly, but the BJP government halted those proceedings.”

Additionally, while there were cases against the Chief Secretary and several officials regarding the cessation of pensions for elderly individuals and widows in Delhi, the BJP government chose to terminate those cases, he said.

Earlier in the day, former Delhi CM Atishi accused the BJP-led central government of failing to deliver on welfare promises. “PM Modi pledged ₹2,500 for Delhi’s women by March 8. When we questioned this in the Assembly, AAP MLAs were expelled,” she told reporters. Atishi also mocked the BJP’s focus on renaming areas like Mustafabad instead of addressing economic concerns.

The Supreme Court has quashed an FIR against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi over a poem posted on Instagram, reinforcing its stance on protecting freedom of speech. The top court stated that courts must lead in safeguarding the right to free expression and observed that mere discomfort or disagreement cannot be grounds for curbing speech.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that no offence was made out in the case, criticising the Gujarat Police for its prompt action against the parliamentarian. The FIR was registered in Jamnagar on January 3 by a clerk working for an advocate, who alleged that the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” disturbed social harmony.

The court stressed that Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which allows reasonable restrictions on free speech, should not overshadow the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1). “Restrictions must be reasonable, not fanciful,” the bench noted.

Highlighting the significance of creative expression, the court said, “Literature, including poetry, drama, films, stand-up comedy, satire, and art, makes life more meaningful.” It further remarked that in a democratic society, differing opinions must be addressed with counter-speech rather than suppression.

This verdict comes amid a broader debate over artistic freedom, just days after stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra faced FIRs and public outrage for remarks about Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde during a performance in Mumbai.

In his defence, Congress MP claimed the poem was penned by celebrated poets Faiz Ahmed Faiz or Habib Jalib, submitting AI-generated screenshots to support his claim. The prosecution, however, argued that as a lawmaker, he should have acted more responsibly.

The Gujarat High Court had earlier refused to quash the FIR, but the Supreme Court overruled that decision, sending a strong message on the primacy of free speech in a democratic framework.