Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Wednesday permitted the transfer of all the present and future FIRs against former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharm to the Delhi police. Court, however, rejected West Bengal's plea for investigation in the matter by a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT).

Court was hearing a 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 comments on a TV debate on a religious figure in Islam as well as clubbing of the FIRs and their transfer to Delhi for investigation.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala 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.

In its order, the court has held that the Intelligence Fusion & Strategic Operations (IFSO) unit of Delhi Police, which is investigating the case, is at liberty to take assistance from other police forces to take the case to a logical end. 

Moreover, Court directed that Sharma is at liberty to pursue her rights and remedies by approaching the Delhi High Court for quashing the current and future FIRs. 

Earlier, the top court had directed that no coercive action shall be taken against Sharma in present FIRs or complaints as well as in FIRs/ complaints which may be registered/entertained in the future pertaining to the telecast dated May 26, 2022.

While taking note of the submission of Sharma's counsel, Mr. Maninder Singh that there is an imminent threat to her life and liberty, the top court had said that to effectuate the alternative remedy which was stipulated by its earlier order whereby she was asked to approach the High Court for quashing FIRs, a modality needs to be worked out.

In this light, on her prayer-seeking clubbing of FIRs, the Court had issued notice to all respondents, returnable on August 10, 2022 (today).

Background

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.

On July 1, the top court, while refusing to entertain the plea, had remarked that Nupur Sharma is single-handedly responsible for what has happened in the country. Justice Surya Kant had remarked that "She should apologize to the whole country for what she has done. We saw the statement made by her on TV”.

Court had further said that Sharma chose to participate in the TV debate on a matter that was sub-judice (referring to the Gyanvapi Shivling case). , "What is the business of TV Channel to discuss a case that is pending consideration, except for promoting agenda?" Court had remarked.

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 said, "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. Justice Kant had asked Sharma to approach the High Court. Owing to the court's negative criticism of Sharma, Singh had chosen to withdraw the plea. 

Later, court's oral remarks led to a letter petition being filed, addressing the Chief Justice of India, seeking a 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 the Quran and Haddis, it could not declare her to be guilty. The letter petition sought a 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. The statement noted that the comments by the two judges of the Supreme Court had surpassed the ‘Laxman Rekha’ and compelled them to issue an open statement. According to the statement, the observations, which were relayed by all news channels were not in sync with judicial ethos. 

Justice (retd) SN Dhingra, Senior Counsels Aman Lekhi, and Rama Kumar also spoke out against Supreme Court's observations in the case. Thereafter, Advocate Jaya Sukin, wrote to the Attorney General of India, seeking consent to initiate criminal contempt against the retired judge and senior counsels for their comments on Supreme Court's oral observation.

The letter noted that during the course of hearing any matter, the judges engage with counsel, and don't maintain sphinx-like silence. According to the letter, while engaging with counsel, it's natural for judges to open up and make observations and suggestions. It stated, that expunging observations, even if unjustified or irrelevant, shouldn't arise since these remarks are tentative observations. 

However, the Attorney General refused to give consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings. The AG, in his reply to the letter, stated that the statements of three persons were in the realm of “fair comment” on a hearing conducted by Supreme Court.

Case Title: Nupur V Sharma vs. Union of India