The Supreme Court on Friday granted protection to Republic TV's Editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami against any coercive action, including arrest, for three weeks in about 150 FIRs lodged against him.

These cases were registered in several states for his remark against Congress President Sonia Gandhi during a TV debate on killings of two Hindu priests in Palghar on April 16.

A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah issued notice to Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Telangana, Chhattisgarh, Jammu and Kashmir and others, acting on a writ petition filed by Goswami.

The court rejected a plea by senior advocate Vivek Tankha, appearing for the Chhattisgarh government, to restrain Goswami from making further comments similar to the one which resulted in FIRs against him.

"There should be no restraint on the media. I am averse to imposing any restrictions on the media," Justice Chandrachud said.

In its order, the court said during the period of three weeks protection, Goswami can move the trial court or the Bombay High Court for anticipatory bail.

The court said the probe in all the FIRs except the one filed in Nagpur would remain stayed. The Nagpur case would now stand transferred to Mumbai, where it should be investigated along with a case related to the attack on Goswami. It also directed no investigation would take place in future in any FIR lodged with regard to the TV show, aired on April 21.

The top court also directed Goswami to cooperate in the probe.

It also directed the Mumbai Police Commissioner to grant protection to Goswami and his channel as he and his wife faced attack on April 23 on return from the TV studio to their home.

The court also asked Goswami to amend his plea for clubbing the FIRs and put the matter for hearing after eight weeks.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Goswami. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal represented the Maharashtra government, Tankha, the Chhattisgarh government and Manish Singhvi, Rajasthan government.

During the hearing, Rohatgi said no defamation can be alleged by anybody else against the person concerned as this has been settled by this court in the Subramanian Swamy case.

"I have been asked to appear in Chhattisgarh in connection with the FIR registered over there as per a notice received on Friday morning," he said.

"The idea is to muzzle the press...involve the channel and editor in these kinds of frivolous complaints. All these offences are bailable," Rohatgi said, adding there cannot be multiple FIR with same cause of action.

Rohatgi also claimed that there was a murderous attack on the petitioner and his wife.

Sibal, for his part, questioned how Article 32 petition can lie on fake freedom of speech. "You are trying to ignite communal violence here by putting Hindus against the minority," Sibal contended, maintaining that if the FIR has been lodged, it can't be quashed.

"If Congress people have filed FIRs then what is the problem? What is wrong if Congress people file the FIR? Is Goswami so special that he will not appear? Don't BJP people file FIR...Rahul Gandhi is appearing in a defamation case. There is no question of protection," he said, adding all the cases registered fell under the exception clause of freedom of speech and expression.

Sibal further said the consolidation of cases can happen but the investigation cannot be stopped at this stage.

Singhvi contended the statements were made with religious context. He also said FIRs can be registered anywhere.

Tankha, for his part, said that there was a case of misuse of the broadcasting licence here.

"It has hurt the sentiments but for COVID-19, there would have been protests across the country. The gentleman who has come before the court is promoting communal disharmony. He vitiated the atmosphere at the time of lockdown.. you should restrain yourself in such circumstances but you are instigating," he said.

Tankha asked the court not to give any protection to the petitioner.

Countering the arguments, Rohatgi submitted that the petitioner had just asked why this kind of brutal incidents happened despite the police presence in Palghar.

"This court has risen to many occasions and granted protection in such cases," he said.

He also pointed out the petitioner can't be compared with Rahul Gandhi as he is not a political person.