Read Time: 06 minutes

Nupur Sharma in her plea before the Supreme Court that was dismissed today has submitted that, "The FIRs and the death threats are a clear and coordinated campaign intended to silence Petitioner's right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19 (3) (a), and right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950".

She added that the video of her TV debate was doctored mischievously and thereafter highlighted and shared across various social media platforms by anti-social elements. 

"... in essence, it is not the observations of the Petitioner that have created the present situation rather it is the malicious and deliberate dissemination of doctored video that has resulted in the filing of FIRs and threats", the petition states.

A Supreme Court bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala had today refused to a entertain plea by the suspended BJP leader seeking transfer of FIRs registered against her in many states to Delhi for investigation.

Sharma while speaking live in a TV debate, on the Gyanvapi Mosque issue, made certain comments on Prophet Mohammed, which triggered a row.

Subsequently, BJP, the party which she belonged to, suspended her and another party leader - Naveen Jindal amid controversy over the comment.

In her plea, Sharma submitted that she and her family members had constantly been receiving death threats/rape threats/beheading threats which has put her and her family's life and liberty in serious jeopardy.

Sharma had further submitted in her plea that she was an Advocate practicing before the Courts in New Delhi having a standing of 10+ years at the Bar.

To this, Justice Surya Kant said, "You claim to be a lawyer since ten years, but you are making such irresponsible comments".

The petition adds that to Sharma's utter shock, rather than taking stock of the death threats and the open calls for violence, multiple FIRs have been lodged against her in various States on the same alleged incident.

Sharma has also clarified that she did not have any intention or malicious purpose to insult any religious belief, nor did she do so.

"...any purported utterance mentioned in the complaints/FIRs was in response to a serious instigation which occurred during a live TV debate. The said FIRs are filed in complete negation of the ratio of the judgment by the 5-judges - Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P.", the petition added.

Court was further told that Sharma merely sought to convey to the other co-panelists, who had made an attempt to insult the religious beliefs of a class that the said attempts of the panelist were unfair and vitiated the debate.

Case Title: Nupur V Sharma vs. Union of India