SC to hear fresh plea by Nupur Sharma on clubbing FIRs

The application will be heard by a bench of justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala. on July 1, the same bench had denied any relief to Sharma and asked her to withdraw her plea for consolidating the FIRs.

The Supreme Court will hear on Tuesday a petition by suspended Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nupur Sharma seeking to recall the order by which she withdrew the plea to consolidate multiple FIRs filed against her across the country over her remarks on Prophet Mohammed as the Court was not inclined to entertain her petition.

Sharma’s comments about Prophet Mohammed during a TV debate in May had led to a major diplomatic row following which, the BJP at the Centre distanced itself from the controversy and suspended Sharma. (File photo)

The application will be heard by a bench of justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala. on July 1, the same bench had denied any relief to Sharma and asked her to withdraw her plea for consolidating the FIRs.

In a fresh application filed on July 9, Sharma told the Court that she faced arrest in multiple cases registered against her and sought protection from arrest in first information reports (FIRs) filed against her in Delhi, Maharashtra, Telangana, West Bengal, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Assam and the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.

Sharma’s comments about Prophet Mohammed during a TV debate in May had led to a major diplomatic row following which, the BJP at the Centre distanced itself from the controversy and suspended Sharma.

On July 1, the top court had refused to entertain her plea for consolidating the multiple criminal cases as it passed scathing comments on her conduct by terming her “loose tongue” to be responsible for all the violence in the country, including the killing of a tailor in Udaipur in the last week of June.

Commenting on Sharma’s statements, the bench had said, “She is single handedly responsible for what is happening in the country…..her loose tongue has set the entire country on fire.” The court even demanded her to apologise to the nation.

The comments by the Court were oral and did not form part of the final order, which only said, “Learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks and is permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to avail the alternate remedies available under the law. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”

In the new application filed through advocate Rachitta Rai, Sharma said that she seeks to recall the earlier order and rescind the withdrawal that she exercised leading to the July 1 order.

The order passed by the top court had come under criticism from several quarters as a former Delhi high court judge, justice (retd) SN Dhingra, found the SC bench’s comments to be “unfair” and “irresponsible”.

Sharma had relied on earlier orders passed by the top court, by which similar relief was extended to journalist Arnab Goswami for clubbing FIRs against him at one place.

Justice Dhingra was not alone to criticise the observations by the SC bench. An open letter was issued signed by 15 former high court judges, 77 bureaucrats (including former DGPs) and 25 Army veterans seeking a recall of the observations.

The letter said, “In the annals of judiciary, the unfortunate comments have no parallel and are indelible scar on justice system of the largest democracy. Urgent rectification steps are called for as these have potentially serious consequences on democratic values and security of the country.”

On the judges’ comment that Sharma was single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country, the letter stated that such a comment has no rationale. “By such observation perceptionally there is virtual exoneration of the dastardliest beheading at Udaipur in broad daylight. The observations also graduate to most unjustifiable degree that this was “only to fan an agenda,” the signatories said.

The letter further added that the observations are “too serious to be overlooked if rule of law, democracy has to sustain and blossom and deserve to be recalled”.

The SC bench had also wondered why Sharma was not arrested as it observed, “nobody dares to touch you, that shows your clout.” The 117 signatories took objection to even this comment and said, “A rational mind is bewildered not only at the jurisprudential transgressions but also the sweep of the same as judges hit out no holds ‘barred’ at agencies and making innuendo reflections about her clout.”

They felt that it was not proper to comment against the investigating agencies concerned with the probe of cases.