The Supreme Court while quashing the multiple FIRs registered at Fatehpur district of Uttar Pradesh against the Vice Chancellor of a university and its officials over alleged offence of “mass religious conversions” of Hindus into Christianity, held that criminal law cannot be a tool to harass innocent citizens.
The bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra noted that the powers vested in the apex court under Part III of the Constitution are intended to safeguard citizens against violations of their fundamental rights, emphasizing that the right to constitutional remedies itself being a fundamental right underscores the Supreme Court’s role as the final protector and enforcer of these guarantees.
“This Court, as the highest constitutional court, has been conferred with the powers enshrined under Part III of the Constitution to provide remedies against the violation of fundamental rights. The very fact that the right to constitutional remedies has itself been enshrined as a fundamental right is a clear affirmation that this Court is the ultimate guarantor of their enforcement,” the bench observed.
The court was hearing a batch of petitions concerning multiple FIRs registered against the same accused. Upon examination, the bench directed that one of the FIRs— the sixth in the series— be delinked from the rest, noting that it involved distinct and more serious allegations, including firing a gunshot with intent to kill and extortion through criminal force. The court held that such offences, given their gravity, could not be clubbed with the other five FIRs, which were of a different nature and factual matrix.
While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations in the separated FIR, the Supreme Court made it clear that the matter requires deeper judicial scrutiny. Consequently, it directed that the interim protection earlier granted to the accused would continue to remain in force until the case is comprehensively heard and adjudicated.
The bench’s decision underscores its commitment to balancing constitutional rights with the imperatives of criminal justice — ensuring that while the fundamental rights of individuals are safeguarded, the administration of justice in cases involving grave offences remains uncompromised.
Case Details
Case Title: Rajendra Bihari Lal And Another Versus State of UP
Case No.: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 123 Of 2023
Date: 17/10/2025
Read More: S. 270A Penalty Unsustainable Without Clear Identification of ‘Misreporting’: ITAT
