New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nupur Sharma and refused to entertain her petition to club multiple FIRs against her for controversial remarks on Prophet Mohammad.
A vacation bench of justices Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala said that Sharma’s “disturbing statements” were “single-handedly” responsible for igniting “emotions in the country”.
“This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country,” commented Justice Surya Kant, who was extremely critical during the 20-minute hearing.
“What is her business to make these remarks,” the bench asked her counsel, senior advocate Maninder Singh, who requested all FIRs be clubbed and transferred to Delhi.
When Singh said Sharma had apologised, the bench shot back: “She should have gone to TV and apologised to the nation. She was too late to withdraw.”
Even the withdrawal of comments was conditional, the court noted, pointing out she had offered to take back her words only “if someone’s sentiments were hurt”.
The bench rejected Singh’s submission that Sharma was entitled to relief in view of the Supreme Court’s judgement in journalist and editor Arnab Goswami’s case. Singh said there could not be multiple FIRs for the same offence.
To this, the bench retorted: “The case of a journalist on expressing rights on a particular issue is on a different pedestal from a spokesperson who goes to a TV debate and lambasts the other side without thinking of the consequences of such a statement.”
“We need to mould the law accordingly,” it remarked, when Singh argued the Supreme Court had previously permitted citizens to seek the court’s indulgence in matters where multiple cases were lodged against him or her.
“The conscience of this court is not satisfied,” the court observed, asking Sharma to pursue other legal remedies. As the bench was about to dictate its order, Singh sought permission to withdraw the petition.
The bench also took strong exception that Sharma had participated in a TV debate on a topic that was sub-judice. Since the discussion was on the Gyanvapi mosque case, Justice Surya Kant said: “What is the business of the channel to discuss the matter, which is sub-judice, except to promote an agenda?”
Singh explained that Nupur Sharma had made the statement after being provoked. To this, the court said Sharma should have then lodged an FIR against the anchor. Singh clarified, saying it was not the anchor but another panel member who had baited her.
The bench further added that being spokesperson of a national party did not give Sharma the licence to say “such disturbing things”. “These are not religious people at all, they make statements to provoke,” the court added.
It did not approve of Sharma approaching the court directly, bypassing lower courts. “This petition smacks of her arrogance, that the magistrates of the country are too small for her,” the bench observed.
The court was informed that Sharma had joined the investigation in the FIR registered by the Delhi Police. This prompted the court to remark: “There must have been red carpet for you. A red carpet.”
The top court also made an indirect reference to the arrest of fact-checking website AltNews’ editor Mohammad Zubair. The bench said: “You get an FIR registered against someone, that person is arrested, but you are not.”
In defence of his client, Singh said Sharma had never got an FIR lodged against anyone, but the court was in no mood to listen.
Nupur Sharma was suspended by the Bharatiya Janata Party last month after her controversial statements sparked outrage in India and in Muslim nations.
This week, a Hindu tailor was brutally killed in Udaipur by two Muslim men who claimed on video that the attack was to avenge his support for Nupur Sharma.
Also read: 32 IPS officers transferred in Rajasthan in major shake-up after Udaipur tailor murder