SC clubs, transfers all FIRs against Nupur Sharma to Delhi Police

The Supreme Court on Wednesday clubbed and transferred all the FIRs registered across the country against former BJP Spokesperson Nupur Sharma for remarks over Prophet Mohammad, to Delhi Police for investigation.


ANI | New Delhi | Updated: 10-08-2022 18:10 IST | Created: 10-08-2022 18:10 IST
SC clubs, transfers all FIRs against Nupur Sharma to Delhi Police
Representative Image . Image Credit: ANI
  • Country:
  • India

The Supreme Court on Wednesday clubbed and transferred all the FIRs registered across the country against former BJP Spokesperson Nupur Sharma for remarks over Prophet Mohammad, to Delhi Police for investigation. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala also said that protection granted to Sharma from arrest shall continue till the probe is over.

The bench said Sharma may approach the Delhi High Court for quashing the FIRs registered against her and which may be registered in future on the issue. "Since this Court has already taken cognisance of serious threat to life and security of the petitioner, we direct that all the FIRs be transferred and clubbed for the purpose of the investigation to Delhi Police. The Delhi Police shall ensure that the first FIR (of Maharashtra) along with FIR dated June 8 are investigated together by clubbing the other FIRs in different parts," the bench stated in its order.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the State of West Bengal, opposed Sharma's plea and said that the first FIR against her was not registered in Delhi but in Maharashtra. "The accused cannot be allowed to pick the jurisdiction. The maximum impact of her statements is caused in West Bengal. First FIR was in Maharashtra and the state where the maximum impact has been felt is West Bengal. Delhi is not on the list," said Guruswamy.

She also suggested for joint SIT in which officers from other states, where FIRs were registered, can be a part of it and pleaded that the court should monitor the SIT. "Consider the nature of the issue which has caused an impact on our democracy. Some states are supporting the petitioner. Her statements have tainted the rule of law and vitiated the atmosphere. The Court as a moral authority can look into this," she contended.

The bench, however, declined her request for a joint court-ministered SIT. The top court said that the FIR in Delhi has been registered by the Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations (IFSO) unit of the Delhi Police, which is a specialised agency and said that the probe will be carried out by IFSO.

"Whether or not a SIT is to be constituted for the investigation, IFSO of Delhi Police appears to be a specialised agency and it will be appreciated if the investigation is done by it. The IFSO will be at liberty to collect information from other states for it to reach a logical conclusion. Directions issued hereinabove shall also extend to any other FIR or complaint which may be registered against the petitioner in future on the same subject matter, and the investigation of future FIRs shall also stand transferred to IFSO unit of Delhi police," stated the bench in the order. Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Sharma, argued that life threats were received by Sharma following the telecast of the programme.

On July 19, the top court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against Sharma till the next date of hearing. Sharma had approached the apex court seeking a stay on her arrest in the FIRs registered against her across the country. Sharma sought a revival of her withdrawn petition which was filed to club the multiple FIRs registered in different states over her remarks.

Sharma had sought direction to club all the FIRs registered against her accross the country and quashing of them. 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 had 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 single-handedly 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?"

"The way she has ignited emotions across the country. This lady is single handedly 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 had also slammed Sharma for her arrogance and said because she is 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 transfer of all the FIRs registered against her across the country to Delhi for her remarks on TV news channel debate about Prophet Mohammad 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 judgements lead to a "dangerous scenario" where the judges have to think about what media thinks instead of what the law really thinks. Justice Pardiwala had said that social and digital media is primarily resorted to expressing personalised opinions more against the judges, rather than a constructive critical appraisal of their judgments. (ANI)

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Give Feedback