Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a plea seeking direction to arrest suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma for her remarks against Prophet Muhammad.

A bench headed by CJI UU Lalit refused to hear the plea filed by one Abu Sohel. "Your plea looks innocuous, but it has far reaching consequences", the bench also comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha told the petitioner.

Nupur Sharma, while speaking live in a TV debate on the Gyanvapi Mosque issue, made certain comments on Prophet Mohammed, which triggered a row. BJP, the party to which she belonged, subsequently suspended her and another party leader Naveen Jindal amid controversy over the comment.

It is to be noted that last month, the Supreme Court permitted the transfer of all the present and future FIRs against Nupur Sharma to the Delhi police.

The order was passed in the plea by the suspended BJP leader seeking protection from arrest in the FIRs registered against her in several parts of the country in relation to her comment as well as clubbing of the FIRs and their transfer to Delhi for investigation.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala had then held that till the investigation is concluded, the interim order passed by the court dated July 19, 2022, wherein Sharma was protected against coercive steps, will continue.

Background

On July 1, the top court had originally refused to entertain Sharma's plea for clubbing all FIRs against her. The Court had then remarked that the BJP spokesperson was single-handedly responsible for what has happened in the country.

Justice Surya Kant had remarked, "She should apologise to the whole country for what she has done. We saw the statement made by her on TV.”  The bench further said that Sharma chose to participate in the TV debate on a matter that was sub-judice (referring to the Gyanvapi Shivling case).

The court had further remarked, "What is the business of TV Channel to discuss a case that is pending consideration, excepting for promoting agenda?"

Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv, had replied to this by submitting that Sharma was provoked and the comments she made were in response to the provocation. Singh had added that Sharma did not intend to flare up this controversy. He had argued that, in the TV Debate, it was frequently repeated that the Shivling was a fountain and she was merely responding. The bench had then remarked, "She should have filed an FIR against the TV anchor then."

The top court had further said that Sharma's statement was responsible for the unfortunate killing in Udaipur.

The court's oral remarks led to a letter petition being filed, addressed to the Chief Justice of India, seeking direction to the vacation bench headed by Justice Surya Kant to withdraw their observations made. The letter petition, by Ajay Gautam, alleged that when the Court had not examined whether whatever was said by Sharma was right or wrong in the light of Quran and Haddis, it could not declare her to be guilty. The letter petition sought declaration that the observations made by the bench headed by Justice Surya Kant were uncalled for.

The oral remarks, also led to 15 retired judges, 77 former bureaucrats and 25 army veterans, releasing an open statement noting that the comments by the two judges of the Supreme Court surpassed the ‘Laxman Rekha’. According to the statement, the observations, which were relayed by all news channels were not in sync with judicial ethos.

Case Title: Abu Sohel vs. Nupur Sharma and Ors