The Supreme Court has granted an interim relief to former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Spokesperson Nupur Sharma on Tuesday, directing that no coercive steps be taken against her in connection with the multiple First Information Reports (FIR) registered against her in different states over her remarks about Prophet Mohammed.
Sharma had made the offensive remarks during a national television debate show that aired on Times Now on May 26. The Court stated that the same relief will cover any future FIR or complaint which may be registered or entertained against her with respect to the same telecast.
The same bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala, who had earlier refused to entertain her plea, have now reportedly issued notice on a fresh Miscellaneous Application filed by Sharma to revive her earlier plea. She has claimed that she is receiving rape and death threats after the Court’s critical comments. As a result, she has approached the Apex court instead of availing alternate remedy by approaching the High Court as directed by the Supreme Court.
With the purpose of awarding her protection to enable her to avail remedies under law, the Court issued notice to the Union and States where the FIRs have been registered to “explore the modality of giving her security from life threats.”
The bench reportedly stated, “In order to explore this, let notice be issued to the respondents returnable by 10th August. Copies of the main writ petition be also forwarded along with the notice. Liberty granted for dasti and service through standing counsels. 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 the future pertaining to the same telecast dated 26.05.2022.”
Nupur Sharma had moved a new application in the Supreme Court on Monday to revive her withdrawn writ petition which was filed to club the multiple FIRs registered in different states over her remarks on Prophet Mohammed and had also sought stay of arrest in the cases as an interim relief.
Earlier on July 1, the vacation bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala had heavily criticised her for making “disturbing” and derogatory remarks against Prophet Mohammed and igniting communal rift in the country. The bench reportedly held that she has a “loose tongue” and held her “single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country”. The bench had refused to entertain her plea and Sharma had accordingly, withdrawn her petition.
Senior Advocate Mahinder Singh, appearing for the petitioner, submitted, “The threat is continuing. And there is a genuine serious risk of life in me going to every place to quash the FIR. It is one allegation of so-called criminal offence and multiple FIRs. I beseech your lordships. The threat is genuine and real now. My rights under Article 21 are at stake. Your lordships are the protectors of Article 21.”
Justice Kant interrupted him saying, “To that extent we are correcting, we did not intend that you have to go to all places” and then asked Sharma her one place of choice to avail remedy. Advocate Singh informed the Court that Delhi is the first FIR and said, “Wherever the first FIR, that is the law.” When given a choice to approach the Delhi High Court, Singh agreed.
