Supreme Court Refuses Interim Protection To Jitendra Tyagi In His Plea For Clubbing Of FIRs, Issues Notice
|The Court, while hearing the matter, cautioned him against taking advantage and warned that the petition could be dismissed, stating that it would consider only the consolidation of cases and not grant protection.
The Supreme Court today issued notice in a plea filed by Jitendra Tyagi seeking clubbing of multiple FIRs registered against him across different states for hate speech. However, the Court refused to grant him interim protection.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “Protection, you must have got in individual cases, we are not protecting you in this… if you wanted some protection, you should have taken it in individual cases.”
The Bench further clarified that it was only considering the consolidation of cases, remarking, “You want clubbing of the cases to be tried at one place, that is what we are considering, that’s it.”
Jitendra Tyagi was represented by Anurag Kishore, AOR.
The Petitioner, Jitendra Tyagi (formerly Wasim Rizvi), was the ex-chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Shia Central Waqf Board. His controversial stance on the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute and his book Muhammad led to multiple FIRs under Sections 153A, 295A, and 505 of the IPC.
After converting to Hinduism in December 2021, he claimed to have faced death threats, fatwas, and assassination attempts. Despite being granted Y-category security by the Uttar Pradesh government, he argued that traveling for multiple trials posed a serious risk to his life.
Tyagi submitted that he faced a serious threat to his life due to the multiple cases filed against him across various states. He argued that compelling him to travel to different courts for hearings would expose him to heightened security risks. His counsel further submitted that he had previously been granted protection in a case pending before the Haridwar Court and requested a similar approach for his pending cases elsewhere.
In his petition, Tyagi sought the consolidation of all FIRs and pending cases across different states and their transfer to a single jurisdiction, preferably Uttar Pradesh, where he resides. He alleged that frequent travel for court hearings exposed him to serious security threats, particularly in states like Jammu & Kashmir.
Significantly, the Court also warned Jitendra Tyagi against taking undue advantage of the plea, stating, “Please don’t take undue advantage”, warning that the Court would dismiss the petition.
However, the Court issued notice in the petition, returnable in four weeks.
Cause Title: Jitendra Narayan Tyagi @ Syed Waseem Rizvi v. State of Uttarakhand &Ors. (W.P.(Crl.) No. 127/2025)