Prophet remarks row: No coercive action against Nupur Sharma, orders SC

Former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nupur Sharma is seeking a stay on her arrest in connection with the FIRs registered against her for the alleged hate statement on Prophet Muhammad.

NEW DELHI: In a big relief for suspended Bharatiya Janata Party leader Nupur Sharma, the Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notices to respondents and directed that "no coercive action" should be taken against her. Former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma is seeking a stay on her arrest in connection with the FIRs registered against her for her alleged hate remarks on Prophet Muhammad and Islam.

Supreme Court issues notice to respondents on the Nupur Sharma plea. Supreme Court directs no coercive action should be taken against Nupur Sharma.

— ANI (@ANI) July 19, 2022

The order was issued by the bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala, which is hearing the fresh application moved by Sharma seeking to revive her withdrawn petition which was filed to club the multiple FIRs registered in different states over her remarks. The bench, while directing various states to respond to her request to club multiple FIRs against her, said that she can't be arrested for now.

Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Nupur Sharma, submitted before the top court that there are serious threats to her life. The bench while dictating the order also took notes of Salman Chishti's viral statement about killing the petitioner. The Supreme Court also noted that a man from UP also threatened to behead the petitioner.

Sharma has sought direction to club all the FIRs registered against her across the country. She said that after the top court`s strong criticism of her, the fringe elements have renewed their threat to her life and also given rape threats.

Sharma has requested the apex court that since the first FIR against her was registered in Delhi, all FIRs at other places be clubbed with Delhi FIR. On July 1, the Supreme Court came down heavily on Sharma and said that she and "her loose tongue" has set the entire country on fire and she is singlehandedly responsible for what is happening in the country.

The bench had slammed Sharma for her statement made during a TV news channel debate and while referring to the Udaipur incident, where two men murdered a tailor, said her outburst is responsible for the unfortunate incident.

Rejecting Sharma`s request to transfer all the FIRs registered against her in many states for her alleged remarks on Prophet Mohammad, to Delhi for investigation, the bench had observed that "She has threat or she has become security threat?"

Senior advocate Maninder Singh appearing for Sharma had then withdrawn the plea. "The way she has ignited emotions across the country. This lady is singlehandedly responsible for what is happening in the country," the bench had said.

The apex court then said that Sharma should have gone to the TV and apologised to the nation. It also slammed Sharma for her arrogance and said because she is the spokesperson of a party, power has gone to her head.

It had also asked about what the Delhi Police has done after a complaint was registered against Nupur Sharma. The bench had said on her complaint a person is arrested, but despite multiple FIRs, she has not yet been touched by Delhi police.

The apex court was hearing a plea filed by Sharma seeking the transfer of all the FIRs registered against her across the country to Delhi for her remarks on a TV news channel debate about Prophet Muhammad which had led to violent protests and riots in many states.

After the observation made on Sharma, both the judges were targeted on social media by users. Later, while attending an event Justice JB Pardiwala even expressed concerns at the personal attacks on judges and said that personal attacks on judges for their judgments lead to a "dangerous scenario" where the judges have to think about what the media thinks instead of what the law really thinks.

Justice Pardiwala had said that social and digital media primarily resorted to expressing personalised opinions more against the judges, rather than a constructive critical appraisal of their judgments.