Breaking: Supreme Court Stays Coercive Action Against Nupur Sharma, Refers To Threats By Salman Chishti And Others In Its Order
Supreme Court today stayed coercive action against Nupur Sharma in the FIRs that have been registered against her and any FIR that may be registered against her in future for the same incident.
The Bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice J. B. Pardiwala ordered "in the light of the 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 vide its order. In order to explore such modality let notice be issued to the Respondents.... As an interim measure, no coercive action must be taken against Petitioner in the impugned FIRs/complaints or such FIRs/complaints that may be entertained in future pertaining to the telecast dated May 26, 2022".
The Court has also recorded in its order that "it is pointed out that it has become impossible for the Petitioner to avail alternative remedy and that there is an imminent necessity for intervention by this Court to protect her life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21".
In support of her plea, the petitioner has avered in the MA that after the Order of July 1 of passed by this court, various incidents including one Salman Chisti has circulated a disturbing video thereby calling upon to cut the throat of the Applicant. One more person has made a viral video using abusing language against the Petitioner, the Court noted in its Order.
The Court also noted that Some more FIRs have been registered in West Bengal which were not in the knowledge of the Petitioner. The Calcutta police have issued a lookout circular due to which she apprehends her immediate arrest and consequent denial of fair opportunity to approach different High Courts for quashing of the FIRs.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appearing for Nupur Sharma along with Senior Advocate Atamaram Nadkarni has argued that "certain developments have taken place. Thre is a serious threat to life. There is news that some persons have travelled from Pakistan. Any kind of security will not make it possible to protect my life if I have to travel to all High Courts".
"Have these incidents happened after the order?", Justice Surya Kant asked. "We never wanted her to go to every place", the Bench added.
"It is one allegation of so-called criminal offence and multiple FIRs", Singh submitted.
"Our main concern is that you were relegated to avail alternate remedy. Now you have pointed out subsequent unfortunate incidents. Those incidents are causing serious impediments in availing the alternate remedy. We understand. Our concern is only that you need modalities so that you can avail your legal remedy. As a citizen, you are entitled to it. We will evolve a mechanism for you to adopt the alternate remedy", Justice Surya Kant said.
Nupur Sharma, Ex- BJP Spokesperson, had once again moved the Supreme Court with a new application seeking to revive her previous petition seeking clubbing of the multiple FIRs that have been filed against her throughout the country for the alleged blasphemous remarks that she had made about Prophet Mohammed. She had also sought protection from arrest as an interim relief in the cases filed against her.
The same Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice J. B. Pardiwala had on July 1 made some controversial remarks while hearing the plea of Nupur Sharma seeking transfer and consolidation of the FIRs registered against her across the Country.
The Bench had said that the outburst by Nupur Sharma (alleged blasphemous remarks) was responsible for the incident of Udaipur where a tailor was beheaded. The Bench had also said that Nupur Sharma should have apologised to the nation and that she is single-handedly responsible for what happened in the country, referring to the riots that happened in different parts of the country against her remarks.
The case before the Court was dismissed as withdrawn "with liberty to avail alternate remedy available under the law". However, the oral remarks by the Bench during the hearing have led to a huge uproar. (read reports)
Multiple letter petitions had been filed before the Chief Justice of India seeking withdrawal of the remarks by the Bench.