NEW DELHI: Suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma on Tuesday got interim protection from the Supreme Court against coercive action in connection with multiple FIRs registered against her in several states over her provocative remarks on Prophet Mohammed.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and J B Pardiwala, which had earlier refused to club the FIRs lodged against Sharma and castigated her for her hate speech, took note of the threats to her life after its July 1 order.
Observing that it never wanted Sharma to visit every court for relief, the bench issued notices to the Centre and various states, including Delhi, West Bengal, and Maharashtra on her plea urging protection from arrest as well as the revival of her withdrawn petition seeking clubbing of FIRs lodged in the states.
The court sought responses by August 10, the next date of hearing.
While taking note of the submissions made by senior advocate Maninder Singh, who appeared for Sharma and referred to the threats to her life, the bench said its concern is how to ensure that she can avail of the remedy permitted on July 1.
The bench permitted the petitioner to file an additional affidavit giving specific details of the threats extended to her after filing the application.
During the arguments, Singh said that ever since the July 1 order of the court, Sharma received threats to life, adding a person from Pakistan has travelled to India to attack her. He informed that some extremists arrested in Patna recently revealed that Sharma was their target. “We never wanted you or your family to be put in any kind of danger,” the bench said.
Observing that it never wanted Sharma to visit every court for relief, the bench issued notices to the Centre and several states including Delhi, West Bengal, and Maharashtra on her plea urging protection from arrest as well as the revival of her withdrawn petition seeking clubbing of nine FIRs lodged in several states.
"In the meanwhile, as an interim measure, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned nine FIRs/complaints or such FIRs/complaints which may be registered/entertained in future pertaining to the telecast dated May 26, 2022," the bench said.
The top court sought responses of the Centre and the concerned States by August 10, the next date of hearing.
While taking note of the submissions made by senior advocate Maninder Singh, who appeared for Sharma and referred to the threats to her life, the bench said its concern is how to ensure that the petitioner will avail of the alternative remedy as permitted by the court on July 1.
"In the light of these subsequent events, some of which have been noticed above, the concern of this court is how to ensure that the petitioner is able to avail the alternative remedy as permitted by this court in an order dated July 1," the bench observed.
"In order to explore such modality, let notice be issued to the respondents in the miscellaneous application for August 10," it said.
The top court said, The petitioner has approached this court to quash all FIRs registered against her.
Since her prayer can be granted in exercise of powers under Article 226, this court had on July 1 2022 relegated the petitioner to avail alternate remedy.
It added that now the petitioner has filed a miscellaneous application pointing out interalia that it has become impossible for her to avail remedy granted by this court and that there is imminent necessity to protect her life and liberty as guaranteed under Article 21.
The bench then noted in its order that after July 1, order various incidents including Salman Chisti, a Khadim of Ajmer Dargah circulated a video for rewarding those who would behead the petitioner and one more video has been made viral of a man in UP threatening to behead her.
Singh said that the apex court had wanted Sharma to go to different courts for relief but it has become increasingly difficult for her to visit the courts due to increasing threats.
"We must correct the facts. Perhaps we were not able to convey correctly but we never wanted you to go to every court for relief," the bench said.
Singh submitted, "What has happened has already happened. There is a continuing threat to her life. These threats are genuine and real. No amount of security will be able to protect her if she is asked to appear before different courts. After the July 1 order, the West Bengal Police registered four fresh FIRs. A Look Out Circular has been issued by Calcutta Police. This is a question of Article 21, she needs to be protected."
When Singh said that notice be issued on the main petition also, the bench said that copies of the main writ petition be also forwarded along with the notice for ready reference of the respondents (Centre and concerned states).
The bench permitted Sharma to file an additional affidavit giving specific details of the threats extended to her after filing the application.
During the arguments, Singh said that since the July 1 order of the top court, Sharma has been extended threats to life and it has come on record that a person from Pakistan has travelled to India to attack her.
He said that recently in Patna, some alleged extremists were arrested, who are said to have the petitioner as their target.
The bench was told by Singh that these incidents, which he is referring to, happened after the July 1 order.
The bench said, "We never wanted you or your family to be put in any kind of danger".
Singh said in these circumstances, they are seeking clubbing of the FIRs as all of them are based on the same cause of action.
"The court can club all the other FIRs to the first FIR which was lodged in Delhi as they arise out of the same video. Stay the investigation in other FIRs and protection be granted from any coercive action. If any future FIRs or complaints are lodged arising out of the same cause of action those may also be stayed," Singh said while referring to the application.
The bench said, "Our concern is that the petitioner is not deprived of availing the legal remedy. We will pass orders to that effect."
On July 1, the same bench of the top court severely criticised Sharma for her controversial comments against the Prophet, saying her "loose tongue" has "set the entire country on fire" and that she is "single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country".
Sharma, who has filed an application urging the apex court to hear her plea on merits, said that during the hearing on the petition on July 1, the apex court had made certain oral observations and was of the view that she should approach the jurisdictional courts or the respective high courts.
"It is respectfully submitted that during the course of the hearing, however, this court was also pleased to make certain oral observations/remarks.
Such remarks are very widely reported and circulated in the electronic media, print media, and social media," it said.
"In the most humble and respectful submission of the applicant (Sharma), such strong observations and remarks, though oral and verbal, would have an inevitable, though unintended consequence that no other court exercising the jurisdiction will exercise it in favour of the applicant," it said.
On July 1, the same bench severely criticised Sharma for her controversial comments against the Prophet, saying her "loose tongue" has "set the entire country on fire" and that she is "single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country".
In her application, Sharma said, "The statement/references made by the petitioner were subsequently publicly withdrawn by the petitioner in good faith."
The application said the July 1 observations were reported not just in Indian media but also abroad.
"Further, social media has no geographical barriers and resultantly, the applicant is having a very bona fide and genuine apprehension of not being able to get any relief from the jurisdictional courts spread over to the entire country," it said.
It said there is imminent danger and threat to the applicant's life and safety which could not be placed for consideration by the court on the day when the plea was heard.
"It is respectfully submitted that the applicant has been constantly receiving threats to her life both publicly and privately. Such threats cannot be treated as empty threats in view of the horrendous incident which took place in Udaipur and Amravati, for which the applicant can never be held responsible," the application said.
A tailor in Udaipur was brutally murdered by two men, who had posted videos online claiming that they were avenging an insult to Islam.
Pharmacist Umesh Kolhe was killed in Amravati on June 21, allegedly for sharing a post supporting Sharma.
In her application, Sharma said after the July 1 order permitting withdrawal of the plea, one more serious incident had taken place where a person, claiming to be a Khadim' of Ajmer Dargah, had circulated a video calling upon every Muslim to cut her throat.
"It is submitted that it is clear from such incidents and the seriousness of the threats that are being constantly made against the applicant that no amount of security, either provided locally or provided through Central forces, would be enough to protect the applicant in case she is required to travel to various parts of the country in order to join the investigation," it said, adding that several such instances have been coming to light after July 1.
It said Sharma was facing two FIRs in West Bengal at the time of filing of plea and it has come to her knowledge that three more FIRs have been lodged there.
"It is submitted that there is a large number of serious life threats that the applicant has been receiving from the state of West Bengal and in light of the statements made by the chief minister of West Bengal, the apprehension of the applicant/petitioner is fully justified that it would be completely unsafe for the applicant to go the West Bengal and have recourse to the jurisdictional courts in the state of West Bengal," it said.
The application said Kolkata Police has issued a lookout circular on July 2 against Sharma which would deprive her of her right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Sharma said considering the very nature of prayers made, no court other than the apex court has the jurisdiction to grant relief of consolidating/ quashing FIRs pending before various high courts.
"If this court is satisfied that the apprehension of the applicant in not being able to take recourse to justice in other fora is hampered due to the oral observations made by this court and if this court's conscience is satisfied that the applicant's right under Article 21 is in fact under a serious threat along with breach of Article 14, 19 and 20, this court would have no procedural limitation or inhibition in passing an appropriate order in this application ," it said.
"It has urged the court to allow Sharma to withdraw her request to withdraw the plea, as recorded in July 1 order, and to hear the matter on merits."
(With PTI Inputs)