In an interim relief to former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) functionary Nupur Sharma, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that no coercive action be taken against her until next hearing on August 10.
The SC also protected Sharma from coercive action in FIRs and complaints that may be registered in the future against her.
Sharma had moved the Supreme Court on Monday with a petition seeking clubbing of FIRs filed against her over her comments on Prophet Muhammad.
Sharma had also sought expunction of adverse remarks made against her on July 1 by SC while refusing to entertain her plea for clubbing of the FIRs, saying she has been receiving death threats after the criticism, according to a lawyer associated with the case. She had also sought protection from arrest.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and J B Pardiwala also took note of the alleged threats to Sharma's life.
Observing that it never wanted Sharma to visit every court for relief, the bench issued notices to the Centre and several states including Delhi, West Bengal, and Maharashtra on her petition.
The bench permitted the petitioner to file an additional affidavit giving specific details of the threats extended to her after filing the application.
During the arguments, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh who appeared for Sharma, said that since the July 1 order of the top court, Sharma has been extended threats to life and it has come on record that a person from Pakistan has travelled to India to attack her. He said that recently in Patna, some alleged extremists were arrested who are said to have Sharma as their target.
The bench asked Singh whether these incidents, which he is referring to, happened after July 1 order. Singh replied in the affirmative.
Singh said that the apex court wanted Sharma to go to different courts for relief but it has become increasingly difficult for her to visit the courts due to increasing threats.
"We must correct the facts. Perhaps we were not able to convey correctly but we never wanted you to go to every court for relief," the bench said.
Singh submitted, "What has happened has already happened. There is continuing threat to her life. These threats are genuine and real. After the July 1 order, the West Bengal Police registered four fresh FIRs. This is a question of Article 21."
The bench said what it understands correctly from Singh’s submission is that the petitioner wants to go to any one court like the Delhi High Court.
"We never wanted you or your family to be put in any kind of danger," the bench said.
Singh said in these circumstances, they are seeking clubbing of the FIRs as all of them are based on the same cause of action.
"The court can club all the other FIRs to the first FIR which was lodged in Delhi as they arise out of the same video. Stay off the investigation in other FIRs and protection be granted from any coercive action. If any future FIRs or complaints are lodged arising out of the same cause of action those may also be stayed," Singh said.
The bench said, "Our concern is that petitioner is not deprived of availing the legal remedy. We will pass orders to that effect."
On July 1, the Supreme Court had made sharp comments on Sharma, saying her "loose tongue" has "set the entire country on fire" and that she is "single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country".
The SC had said, "She actually has a loose tongue and has made all kinds of irresponsible statements on TV and set the entire country on fire. Yet, she claims to be a lawyer of 10 years standing...She should have immediately apologised for her comments to the whole country."
Refusing to entertain Sharma's plea for clubbing of FIRs lodged in various states against her for the remark, the bench had at the time held that the comment was made either for cheap publicity, political agenda, or some nefarious activities.
Sharma's comments on Prophet Muhammad on a TV debate had triggered protests across the country and across the world, particularly from West Asian Islamic countries, which issued sharp statements and summoned Indian diplomats to register their protests. The BJP subsequently suspended her and expelled another functionary —Naveen Kumar Jindal— from the party. There were also reports of markets abroad taking Indian products off the shelf in protest against Sharma's comments.
The SC had said, "These remarks are very disturbing and smack of arrogance. What is her business to make such remarks? These remarks have led to unfortunate incidents in the country...These people are not religious. They do not have respect for other religions. These remarks were made for cheap publicity or political agenda or some other nefarious activities."
While refusing to entertain Sharma's plea for clubbing of FIRs, the bench had allowed her to withdraw the plea.
"She has a threat or she has become a 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 when Sharma's lawyer Maninder Singh had pointed out that she was facing threats to life.
The court's observations against the suspended BJP leader had come in the backdrop of the brutal murder of a tailor in Udaipur by two men.
The tailor Kanhaiya Lal was allegedly killed by two men, who also filed the killing. In a video released by them, they said Lal was killed in response to disrespect shown to Prophet Muhammad.
(With PTI inputs)
