The Supreme Court grants protection to Nupur Sharma against punitive actions

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted interim protection to the BJP’s suspended spokeswoman, Nupur Sharma, of punitive actions in relation to the FIR / allegations filed against her in various states for her statements about the Prophet Muhammad.

A bench of Judge Surya Kant and Judge JB Pardiwala also relieved Sharma of punitive action in future FIR / complaints.

The matter concerns statements about the Prophet during a television debate program on May 26th.

The bank was also aware that he had allegedly received death threats from Sharma following his July 1 order.

In his July 1 order, he refused to rally the registered FIRs against Sharma in different parts of the country and strongly condemned the suspended BJP spokesman for his comments.

The Supreme Court said it never wanted Nupur Sharma to approach all the courts for help, the bank issued warnings to various states such as Central, Delhi, West Bengal and Maharashtra about its petition and the upcoming date of the hearing until August 10th. He asked for an answer.

In the meantime, as a provisional measure, it is ordered that no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner in the FIR / registered complaints regarding the issuance of May 26, 2022 or in the FIR / complaints that may be filed in the future. bank said.will not be done.

Sharma, in his statement, has called for the restoration of his petition calling for protection against arrest, as well as the consolidation of FIRs registered in different states.

Taking note of the allegations made by Chief Counsel Maninder Singh, who appeared for him, the bank said its concern was how to ensure that the petitioner used the alternative remedy allowed by the court on 1 of July.

“In view of these subsequent developments, some of which are noted above, the concern of this court is how to ensure that petitioners can make use of the alternative remedy that this Court has allowed in the order of the July 1, “the court said. a. ‘

He said: “To explore these modalities, a notice can be issued to respondents in various applications by August 10.”

When Singh said the notice should also be issued in the main petition, the court said that copies of the main written petition should also be sent along with the notice for the reference of the respondents (Center and interested states).

The court allowed the petitioner to submit an additional affidavit, detailing specifically the threats received by him after filing the application.

During the presentation, Singh said that Sharma has received death threats since the July 1 Supreme Court order and that it is clear that a person from Pakistan has traveled to India to attack him.

He said some alleged extremists, who are said to have been the target of the petitioners, have recently been arrested in Patna.

The bank asked Singh if these incidents, to which he referred, happened after the July 1 order. The lead attorney answered “yes” to that.

Singh said the supreme court wanted Nupur Sharma to go to different courts for help, but due to the growing threats, it has become difficult for her to visit the courts.

The bank said, “We should have corrected the facts. We may not have said it correctly, but we never wanted you to go to all the courts to ask for help.

Singh said: “What happened has already happened. There is a constant threat to his life (Sharma). These threats are real. After the July 1 order, West Bengal police recorded four new FIRs.This is a matter of Article 21. ‘

The bank said that what is correctly understood from Singh’s claim is that the petitioner wants to approach one of the courts like the Delhi High Court.

“We never wanted you or your family to be in danger of any kind of danger,” the bench said.

Singh said that in these circumstances they ask to place the FIRs together as they are all based on the same cause of action.

“The court can place all other FIRs with the first FIR, which was registered in Delhi as they are based on the same video,” he said. Stop the investigation in other FIRs and be protected from any coercive action. If in the future any FIR or complaint is filed for the same reason, they can also be suspended.

“Our concern is that the petitioner should not be deprived of the benefit of the legal remedy,” the court stated. We will pass an order to that effect.

It is known that on Monday, Nupur Sharma moved to the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the petition seeking to merge the separate registered FIRs in relation to his statements about the Prophet Muhammad.

Along with this, Sharma had also asked to withdraw the adverse remarks made by the holiday bank during the hearing of her petition on 1 July.

A bench of judges Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala had refused on July 1 to hear Sharma’s request for consolidation of the FIRs filed in various states over comments against the Prophet Muhammad.

The Supreme Court bench had been deeply saddened by Nupur Sharma for her statements about the Prophet, saying that she has “set fire to the whole country” with her “unbridled tongue” and “she is solely responsible for what is happening in the country “. eh.

The court had said: “He has no control over his language and made irresponsible statements on television and set the whole country on fire.” Still, she claims to have been a lawyer for 10 years. He should apologize nationwide for his comments.

Although he refused to heed Sharma’s request to link the FIRs registered against him to various states for the statements, the court had held that the statements were made “by cheap publicity, political agenda or some nefarious activities.”

Cases against Nupur Sharma are known to have been reported for statements against the Prophet Muhammad in various districts of Maharashtra as well as in Calcutta.

Not only that, in June, three weeks after the BJP’s suspended spokesman Nupur Sharma made statements against the Prophet Muhammad, an FIR was registered on behalf of Navika Kumar of the ‘Times Now’ news channel.

Controversy erupted after Nupur’s statements made during the Times Now prime-time show presented by Navika Kumar.

Navika Kumar has been accused of injuring religious sentiments for malicious intent in an FIR filed at Nanalpet police station on the basis of a complaint from a Muslim clergyman in Parbhani, Maharashtra.

It is known that on June 5, BJP suspended its national spokesman Nupur Sharma and expelled Delhi unit spokesman Naveen Jindal for comments about the Prophet Muhammad.

After that, protests were held in many cities and towns across the country on June 10, demanding the arrest of the two BJP leaders. During this, two people were killed during a violent demonstration in Ranchi, the capital of Jharkhand.

On June 10, a petition was filed against Nupur Sharma and Naveen Jindal in a court in the Muzaffarnagar district of Bihar, in which the radical leader of the Hindutva Yeti Narasimhanand has also been appointed as a co-accused.

The petition alleged that the statements of Sharma, Jindal and Narasimhanand could incite community violence.

Apart from this, on June 9, Delhi police have booked 31 people, including Nupur Sharma and Naveen Jindal, the head of AIMIM Asaduddin Owaisi, the radical saint of the Hindutva Yeti Narasimhanand, for allegedly publishing and share messages that incite public peace and disrupt public peace on social media. FIR was registered

(with input from the language of the news agency)

Categories: politics, specials

Tagged as: BJP, Bjp spokesman, communalism, controversial comments, Delhi police, Islam, Kolkata police, Mumbai, Mumbai police, Naveen Jindal, Naveen Kumar Jindal, news, Nupur Sharma, politics, Prophet Muhammad, police station Pydhonie police, Commentary against Prophet, Supreme Court, The Wire

Leave a Comment