Suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma has once again moved the Supreme Court, seeking stay on her arrest in the nine FIRs against her for her remarks on Prophet Muhammad during a TV debate and also sought clubbing of the FIRs with the one registered at Delhi.
In the fresh plea, Sharma said she had again received threats to her life, after strong observations by the top court on her earlier plea.
It also cited top court’s judgments saying that a person cannot be subjected to multiple FIRs in several parts of the country for the same offence. Sharma, in her new plea, also sought a direction to club all FIRs lodged against her to a case registered by the Delhi Police and also sought a direction from the court to let her pursue the previous petition.
On July 1, the Supreme Court minced no words in slamming Sharma, whose remarks on Prophet Muhammad sparked a controversy. The top court said her loose tongue has set the entire country on fire and her irresponsible remarks shows that she is “obstinate and arrogant”.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing Sharma, had mentioned the plea before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and J. B. Pardiwala seeking transfer of all FIRs filed against her to Delhi. However, the bench reprimanded Sharma for making irresponsible comments against a religion during a TV debate.
It said: “These remarks are very disturbing shows her arrogance. What is her business to make such remarks?”
As Singh pointed at the written apology issued by her, the bench said: “This lady has a loose tongue… making inflammatory statements.. she should have to go on TV and apologise to the whole country. Please don’t compel us to open our mouth.”
“It is so disturbing… the outcome is what happened at Udaipur,” it said in a reference to the brutal murder of a tailor.
As Singh said the top court has laid down the principle in Arnab Goswami case to stop vexatious multiple FIRs for the same alleged offence, and that his client is facing a security threat and it would not be safe for her to travel now, the bench replied: “She faces threats or she has become a security threat? This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country.”
The top court then declined to entertain her plea, forcing her to withdraw the petition.