NUPUR SHARMA

acter”, and that Sharma does not want to appear before a magistrate because she thinks “magistrates of the country are too small for her”.

To be sure, the court has previously clubbed and transferred FIRS in multiple cases.

In her petition, Sharma said that nine FIRS were registered against her under various charges of the Indian Penal Code across several states, including Delhi, Maharashtra and West Bengal, in a coordinated attempt to silence her and impinge her right to free speech and liberty.

The court was emphatic that merely being a spokesperson of a national party does not give her licence to say anything. “So what if she is the spokesperson of a party? That does not give her the license to say anything disturbing. The power has gone to her head. These kinds of people are not religious at all since religious people respect every religion,” it said.

The bench added: “She thinks she has the back-up of power and makes any statement without respect to the law of the land?”

Questioning the Delhi Police’s role in the entire matter, the bench pointed out that another person she complained of was arrested immediately but she is still free. “What has the Delhi Police done? Don’t make us open our mouths? When you lodge a complaint, that person is immediately arrested. But nobody dares to touch you. It shows your clout... you must have received a red-carpet welcome when you joined the investigation before the Delhi Police,” it remarked.

Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing Sharma, replied that the “other person” was not arrested on Sharma’s complaint.

Although the bench did not explicitly mention the arrest of Mohammed Zubair, co-founder of fact-checking website Alt News, on the charges of allegedly promoting enmity between communities, the repeated references by the bench and Singh’s response made it clear the court was citing Zubair’s arrest earlier this week by the Delhi Police. Sharma’s comments on Prophet Mohammed during a TV debate on the dispute over Gyanvapi mosque in Uttar Pradesh’s Varanasi triggered a huge international row. She was suspended as a spokeswoman while another BJP leader Naveen Jindal was expelled by the party for their contentious statements on Islam.

The comments led to violent protests in Kanpur, Prayagraj and Saharanpur districts early last month, even as several Muslim countries, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, sent official notes to India over the matter. Nine FIRS were registered against Sharma for allegedly promoting enmity between communities and outraging religious feelings across Delhi, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Telangana.

In Udaipur, Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor was brutally hacked to death by two Muslim men on Tuesday reportedly over social media posts supporting Sharma in the Prophet Mohammed row.

On Friday, senior counsel Singh argued that Sharma has apologised for her comments and that she apprehended threats to her life in appearing before the courts in different states.

But the bench replied: “She has threats or she has herself become a security threat after the way she has ignited emotions across the country… We saw the debate on how she was incited. But the way she said all this to ignite emotions... She makes all irresponsible statements and claims to be a lawyer of 10 years’ standing. It is shameful. She should apologise to the whole country.”

The court further found her apology to be insufficient. “She was too late to withdraw... and (that) too she withdrew conditionally, saying ‘if sentiments were hurt’… she should have immediately gone to the TV and apologized for her comments but she did not do it,” it said.

At this point, Singh tried to assert the right to free speech, arguing if there were going to be multiple FIRS against anyone for saying something which had a basis in some scriptures, citizens will not have the right to speak.

The court, however, remained unimpressed. “We understand all the rights in a democracy. In a democracy, everyone has a right to speak. In a democracy grass has the right to grow and donkey has the right to eat… but that does not give her a license to say anything,” it clarified.

Singh then cited the 2020 Supreme Court judgment in TV anchor Arnab Goswami’s case wherein multiple FIRS against him were clubbed by the court but the bench drew a line of distinction.

“The case of a journalist on expressing rights on a particular issue is on a different pedestal from a spokesperson, who is lambasting others with irresponsible statements without thinking of consequences,” it retorted.

The court held that Sharma should seek her remedies before the high court concerned or the trial courts, compelling Singh to withdraw the petition.

The court also criticised the TV channel for hosting a debate on a sub judice matter (Gyanvapi masjid row). “TV channels have no business to do it. What is the business of a TV channel to discuss the matter which is sub-judice except to promote an agenda?” it said, adding Sharma should have lodged an FIR against the anchor of the show if she claims the debate was misused.

In her petition, Sharma contended that although she lodged the first FIR over the incident at Delhi over grave threats to herself and her family following the TV debate, nine other FIRS were registered against her under various charges of the Indian Penal Code.

She claimed she did not have any malicious intent or had any deliberate intention to outrage the religious feelings or create a public order situation, and therefore, the charges against her were baseless and were liable to be quashed. Sharma urged the top court to either quash all the FIRS or in the alternative, transfer all of them to Delhi where the FIR registered against her remained pending.

Reacting to the top court’s observations, BJP spokesperson RP Singh said, “Oral observations by judges can’t be challenged in other or higher courts as they are not inked.” The Congress welcomed the Supreme Court action and said that the ruling party should hang its head in shame. In a statement, Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh said the court has made crucial and far-reaching observations and strengthened the party’s resolve to fight “destructively divisive ideologies”.

“These remarks by the Supreme Court, which resonate with the entire country, should make the party in power hang its head in shame,” he added.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi accused the Bjp-led government at the Centre of creating an “environment of anger and hatred” in the country. “It is the Prime Minister, it is the Home Minister, it is the BJP and the RSS that has created this environment... This environment of anger and this environment of hatred. And frankly, the creation of this environment in the country is an anti-national act,” he said.

Senior advocate KV Viswanathan said: “Without doubt, the statement of Nupur Sharma was deplorable and the court was rightly incensed. However, in law the second and subsequent FIRS are clearly not maintainable. The right course would be to follow the courts advise, render an unconditional public apology and go back to the court with a petition to restore the writ and seek appropriate reliefs. Since Article 21 is involved, the court may be persuaded to have a second look.”

Former additional solicitor general and senior advocate Aman Lekhi said that both principle and precedent justified issuance of a notice on Sharma’s plea. “Merits of the case is irrelevant to consolidation of FIRS. Selecting Sharma alone as worthy of censure for frenzied environment of today is utterly erroneous. And in any event even litigants with the worst of credentials deserve a hearing. The Supreme Court has been magnanimous on earlier occasions to those far worse placed than Nupur Sharma,” rued Lekhi.

The senior counsel added that Sharma should not have withdrawn the petition. “This legitimises the oral observations,” Lekhi said.

PATNA COURT

Yadav.

While explosives are not usually brought to the court, the official brought the material for exhibit in the court for permission to send it to a forensics lab since it was bomb-making material.

The low-intensity blast injured Yadav in his right arm; he was discharged from hospital after treatment later in the day and is in a stable condition, officials familiar with the matter said.

According to police officials in Pirbahore police station, Yadav, posted at the Kadamkuan police station, had taken the seized explosive material to the prosecutor’s office for producing it before the court. The material was seized during a raid at the Patna University hostel last week. The office is situated on the premises of Patna civil court near Mahendru.

Pirbahore police station SHO, S Haque, said a laptop was also destroyed in the blast. “The police had recovered explosive powder from Patna (University) hostel a few days ago. It was brought to the court for exhibit. It exploded when sub-inspector Umakant kept it on the table. He is out of danger now,” Haque said.

The explosion triggered panic in the court premises.

While some advocates rushed to check in on the public prosecutor, who was unhurt, others rushed Yadav to a hospital. A police team led by Patna senior superintendent of police MS Dhillon rushed to the prosecutor’s office and took stock of the situation.

Police are yet to take any action in the incident.

Ramesh Babu

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The prevailing atmosphere of hate and anger in the country was not created by a single person alone, but the ruling party (the Bharatiya Janata Party) and the ideology driven by it were equally responsible, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said in Wayanad on Friday.

Referring to the SC’S observation earlier in the day that suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma’s comments on Prophet Mohammed in May were “single-handedly responsible for putting the entire nation on fire”, Gandhi said: “The Supreme Court said this. (But) It is not the single person who made this statement but the Prime Minister, home minister and the RSS who created such an environment in the country.”