Zakir Abdul Karim Naik v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (WP (Crl.) No. 99/2013)

In the case the apex court gives insights that whether a fugitive from justice can seek remedies under Article 32 of the Constitution or not. 

• The facts of the cases are as follows: 
• Islamic preacher Zakir Naik filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking to club multiple FIRs registered against him in Maharashtra and Karnataka under Section 153A IPC for alleged hate speech.
• Naik has been declared a fugitive by a special NIA court in Mumbai, with a non-bailable warrant issued against him in 2017.
• Out of 43 cases against Naik, six FIRs (four in Maharashtra, two in Karnataka) remain active.
• The Supreme Court granted a stay on proceedings in 2013.

1. Whether a fugitive from justice can seek remedies under Article 32 of the Constitution?
2. Whether the FIRs against Naik can be clubbed for the sake of judicial efficiency?

• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Maharashtra, argued that a fugitive cannot file a petition under Article 32. 
• The Court allowed the State to raise this objection by filing a counter affidavit. 
• The Court inquired about the status of the pending cases. Naik’s counsel clarified that no final reports have been filed yet. 
• SG Mehta pointed out defects in the petition, including the absence of Naik’s signature. The Court stated that filing of the counter affidavit would not waive any procedural objections raised by the registry. 
• SG Mehta sought clarity on whether Naik intended to withdraw the petition. Naik’s counsel indicated no such instructions had been given. 
• The Court allowed respondents to file their counter affidavits and scheduled the next hearing for the following Wednesday. 

• If Naik’s petition is dismissed on the ground of fugitive status, it could restrict similar petitions by individuals evading justice. 
• However, judicial remedies should ideally not be accessible to those avoiding legal processes. 
• Naik’s alleged speeches have implications for communal harmony. Consolidating FIRs might expedite legal resolution but could also dilute local grievances. 
• Naik’s residence in Malaysia and the IRF ban under UAPA underscore the cross-border dimensions of the case. 
• The case balances individual rights under Article 32 with the state's interest in enforcing the law against fugitives.