A fortnight after it said Nupur Sharma was “single-handedly responsible for putting the entire nation on fire”, the Supreme Court on Tuesday protected the suspended Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader from arrest in connection with criminal cases lodged against her for her controversial comments on Prophet Mohammed during a TV debate on May 26.
In an apparent rethink after 18 days, the bench of justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala sought to clarify that when it denied her the relief during the hearing on July 1, it did not mean to compel Sharma to approach several courts spanning different states where the first information reports (FIRs) were lodged against her.
Also Read| Pak man seeking to kill Nupur Sharma arrested by BSF: Police
“We will correct it to the small extent that we never wanted you to go to all the courts,” observed the bench, adding it is concerned about ensuring that Sharma is able to resort to legal remedies available to her under the law.
The bench, which was at the centre of a storm following its strong comments against Sharma and its denial of her plea to club the FIRs, cited the emergence of new facts after the last hearing. These included death threats to Sharma through two viral videos – one from an Ajmer Dargah cleric and another by a man from Uttar Pradesh --announcing a reward for beheading her.
{{/usCountry}}The bench, which was at the centre of a storm following its strong comments against Sharma and its denial of her plea to club the FIRs, cited the emergence of new facts after the last hearing. These included death threats to Sharma through two viral videos – one from an Ajmer Dargah cleric and another by a man from Uttar Pradesh --announcing a reward for beheading her.
{{/usCountry}}As put forth by her lawyer, senior advocate Maninder Singh, the bench also recorded the facts of issuance of a lookout circular against Sharma by the West Bengal Police, and the presence of her address on the cell phone of a man arrested in Bihar in connection with a terror module case.
In the light of the events after July 1, the bench said in its order, “the concern of this court is how to ensure that the petitioner is able to avail of the alternative remedy under the law”.
Reviving Sharma’s petition which was dismissed as withdrawn on July 1, the court issued notices to the Centre and states, including Maharashtra, West Bengal, Telangana and Delhi, on the aspect of clubbing the FIRs pending against Sharma in these states Delhi. The FIRs have been lodged under charges of promoting enmity between religions, offending religious sentiments and making statements conducing to public mischief. Of the nine FIRs against her, five are pending in Maharashtra, two in West Bengal, and one each in Delhi and Telangana.
“Meanwhile, as an interim measure, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIRs or such FIRs/complaints which may be registered/entertained in future pertaining to the same telecast dated May 26, 2022,” the court directed in its order that will protect Sharma from arrest in any of the pending FIRs or a new one that may be filed in future. The court will hear the case next on August 10.
Sharma moved the top court last month, alleging that nine FIRs were registered against her in a coordinated attempt to silence her and impinge on her right to free speech and liberty. She contended that there were threats being extended to her and her family members.
Also Read| Bihar youth stabbed for ‘supporting’ Nupur Sharma, says family; cops deny claim
On July 1, the bench junked Sharma’s request to consider transferring all the FIRs against her to Delhi, castigating her for her comments. “This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country…The outcome of her statement is what happened in Udaipur... the unfortunate killing in Udaipur. Her remarks were extremely disturbing,” it observed at the time, adding Sharma must apologise to the whole nation for her “loose tongue” that ignited strong emotions just to fan an agenda.
It further said during the previous hearing that her plea seeking to either quash or stay the proceedings in FIRs against her shows her “obstinate and arrogant character”, and that Sharma does not want to appear before a magistrate because she thinks “magistrates of the country are too small for her”.
Questioning the Delhi Police’s role in the entire matter, the bench on July 1 pointed out that another person she complained about was arrested immediately but she is still free but the Delhi Police opted to give her a “red carpet”. Although the bench did not explicitly mention the arrest of Mohammed Zubair, co-founder of fact-checking website Alt News, by the Delhi Police on June 27 over his tweets, its repeated references during the hearing were indication enough.
With the writing on the wall, Sharma’s lawyer Singh chose to withdraw the petition on July 1 “with the liberty to avail of the alternate remedies available under the law”.
On July 9, Sharma, however, filed a new application through advocate Rachitta Rai, seeking to revive her petition in the light of certain new facts, which she claimed, disabled her from pursuing her remedies under the law. Apart from referring to the threats to her life and safety, Sharma said that she cannot be held responsible for the Udaipur incident. The comments by the bench on July 1, her plea added, will have unintended consequences and no subordinate court will give her a favourable order. Her application cited several instances where the Supreme Court clubbed the FIRs arising out of the same incident and granted interim protection from arrest to the petitioner.
Arguing for her, Singh said there is a real threat to Sharma’s life. “There are reports that someone was travelling from Pakistan to kill her and some were apprehended in Patna who were planning to execute her,” said the senior counsel, adding it is virtually impossible for her to travel to different high courts for getting the FIRs quashed.
“If we have understood you correctly, are you willing to go to one high court? Will you go to the Delhi high court?” the bench asked Singh, who replied in the affirmative.
At this, the court added: “Our main concern is that you were earlier relegated to avail of alternative remedies but now you are pointing out future events are such that you are apprehending threats to your life and to your family members... our concern is to ensure the modalities are put in place so that you can avail of alternative remedies.”
Singh lauded the bench for its “magnanimity” and submitted some judgments to show the top court has in similar cases stayed multiple FIRs and granted protection from arrest, before finally clubbing the FIRs at one place.
The bench accepted this approach and passed the interim order protecting Sharma from arrest in any pending or future case over her comments, and fixed the matter for August 10 to hear the Centre and the states.
Sharma’s comments on Prophet Mohammed during a TV debate on the dispute over Gyanvapi mosque in Uttar Pradesh’s Varanasi triggered an international row. She was suspended by the BJP, while another leader Naveen Jindal was expelled by the party for objectionable statements on Islam.
The comments led to violent protests in Kanpur, Prayagraj and Saharanpur districts early last month, even as several Muslim countries, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, sent official notes to India over the matter. Nine FIRs were registered against Sharma for allegedly promoting enmity between communities and outraging religious feelings across Delhi, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Telangana.
In Udaipur, Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor, was hacked to death by two Muslim men on June 28 over social media posts supporting Sharma.