Supreme Court grants protection to Nupur Sharma, issues notice to Govt and others

National

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted protection to suspended Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nupur Sharma from arrest in multiple FIRs.

The SC was debating her request for a stay of proceedings in nine instances that had been brought against her throughout India for allegedly making anti-Prophet Muhammad remarks. On Tuesday, the Union of India and all respondents, including the several states where FIRs have been filed in the matter, received notice from a bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala. The bench ruled that the petitioner would not be subjected to coercion as a temporary measure.

“In light of recent events, the concern of the court is as to how can the petitioner avail the legal remedy. In order to explore the possibility… Let notice be issued to the respondents. The matter was posted for hearing on August 10. Copies of the main writ petition shall also be supplied to the respondents,” said the bench.

The court remarked that in order to obtain the benefit of case clubbing, Article 32 of the court’s jurisdiction was applied. Since the HC can exercise its authority under the CrPC to exercise the above-requested quashing of FIRs, this court on July 1 had instructed the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy.

The petitioner has since filed this modification application, claiming that she is no longer able to use this remedy and that this Court must act quickly to save her life and liberty. The petitioner has claimed that several instances, including threats, followed our directives (the SC has taken note of Chisti’s comments, in which he called for the petitioner’s neck to be slit).

The court remarked that in order to obtain the benefit of case clubbing, Article 32 of the court’s jurisdiction was applied. Since the HC can exercise its authority under the CrPC to exercise the above-requested quashing of FIRs, this court on July 1 had instructed the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy.

The petitioner has since filed this modification application, claiming that she is no longer able to use this remedy and that this Court must act quickly to save her life and liberty. The petitioner has claimed that several instances, including threats, followed our directives (the SC has taken note of Chisti’s comments, in which he called for the petitioner’s neck to be slit).

The court stated that SC also took note of a video of a different guy who had assaulted her and made death threats.
Through a plea, Nupur Sharma is requesting that all FIRs filed against her nationwide be combined. She said that following the highest court’s harsh judgement of her, her life has once again been threatened as well as rape threats.

Sharma had asked that all FIRs at other locations be combined with the Delhi FIR because the initial FIR against her was filed there.

On July 1, the Supreme Court harshly criticised Sharma, claiming that she alone is to blame for the current state of the nation due to “her loose mouth” and “setting the entire country on fire.”

The bench had criticised Sharma for her comments made during a TV news channel discussion and claimed that her outburst was to blame for the terrible occurrence in Udaipur, where two men killed a tailor.

The bench had rebuffed Sharma’s appeal to transfer all the FIRs filed against her for alleged statements she made against the Prophet Mohammad in different states to Delhi for inquiry, noting that “She has threat or she has become security threat?”

Sharma’s appearance by senior attorney Maninder Singh was later dropped.

“The way she has ignited emotions across the country, this lady is singlehandedly responsible for what is happening in the country,” the bench had said.

The supreme court subsequently ruled that Sharma ought to have apologised to the country on television.
It further criticised Sharma for her haughtiness and said that because she serves as a party spokesman, power has corrupted Sharma.

In addition, it inquired as to the Delhi Police’s actions following the filing of a complaint against Nupur Sharma.

The bench had stated that despite many FIRs, Delhi police had not yet made contact with her notwithstanding an arrest made in response to her allegation.

The Supreme Court was hearing a petition from Sharma asking for the transfer of all FIRs against her filed throughout the nation to Delhi as a result of her comments made during a TV news channel debate regarding Prophet Muhammad, which sparked riots and violent protests in several states.

Following the criticism of Sharma, people on social media started to criticise both judges.

Later, Justice JB Pardiwala raised worries about the personal assaults on judges while addressing an event, saying that these attacks created a “hazardous environment” where judges had to consider what the media would think rather than what the law actually required.

According to Justice Pardiwala, rather than serving as a platform for a constructive critique of courts’ rulings, social and digital media are mostly used to express individualised ideas that are more hostile against judges.