SC slams Nupur, says her 'loose tongue' set entire country on fire

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma for her controversial comments against the Prophet, 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".

Refusing to entertain Sharma's plea for clubbing of FIRs lodged in various states against her for the remark, the bench held that the comment was made either for cheap publicity, political agenda or some nefarious activities.

"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," the court said. Sharma's remark against the Prophet during a TV debate triggered protests across the country and drew sharp reactions from many Gulf countries. The BJP subsequently suspended her from the party.

"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", the bench said.

The court's observations against the suspended BJP leader come in the backdrop of the brutal murder of a tailor in Udaipur by two men, who had posted videos online, claiming that they were avenging an insult to Islam.

While refusing to entertain Sharma's plea for clubbing of FIRs, a vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala 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 said when Sharma's lawyer Maninder Singh pointed out that she was facing threats to life.

When Singh said she had indeed apologised for her remarks, the bench said

"Her apology came too late and that too conditionally saying if religious sentiments are hurt and so on. She should have been on TV immediately and apologised to the nation".

Referring to her approaching the Supreme Court directly, the court said her petition smacks of arrogance and that she thinks that the magistrate of the country is too small for her.

"When an FIR is registered and you are not arrested, this shows your clout. She thinks she has the power to back up and goes on to make irresponsible statements", the bench said.

Singh said Sharma was a spokesperson of a political party and her unintentional comments were in relation to a debate. "If you are a spokesperson of a party, it is not a license to say things like this," the bench said.

Singh said she had reacted to the debate initiated by other debators and pointed to the transcript of the debate. He said that there were serious debates on the issue within the same community and Sharma's remarks were made in that context only.

Criticising the TV debate, the bench said, "What was the TV debate for? Was it to fan an agenda and why did they choose a sub-judice topic? What is the business of the TV channel to discuss the matter which is sub-judice, except to promote an agenda?

When pointed out that the remarks were in response to a question by the anchor, the judge said there should have been a case against the host in that case.

Singh pointed out that there was no such intention. "It was again and again said that the shivling was just a fountain or a fawarra. This was said by the debater on the other side and not the anchor". The senior counsel added that "if this is the position then every citizen will have no right to speak".

Referring to various apex court verdicts, Singh said there cannot be a second FIR on the same cause of action.

Justice Kant said she has remedy before the high court and can very well approach it, if there is a second FIR.

Singh then referred to the Arnab Goswami case of 2020 and TT Antony case of 2001, and said the law has been laid down by the apex court that multiple FIR on the same configuration can be clubbed and there can be no second FIR on the same cause.

The bench said,"the case of a journalist expressing his right on a particular issue is on a different pedestal from a spokesperson of a political party who is lambasting others with irresponsible statements without thinking of the consequences".

Justice Kant said, "Yes. In a democracy everyone has the right to speak. In a democracy grass has the right to grow and donkeys have the right to eat".

Singh said she has joined the investigation being conducted by the Delhi Police and not running away and multiple FIRs are lodged against her in Mumbai, Hyderabad, Nagpur to Jammu and Kashmir for the same cause of action.

The bench said, "what has happened in the investigation so far? What has Delhi Police done so far? Don't make us open our mouth? They must have put a red carpet for you."

Observing that in this case a special treatment was meted out to an individual, the bench said when an FIR is registered against someone he is arrested but Sharma was not arrested.

After the hearing which lasted for nearly 30 minutes, the bench said it is not convinced with her bonafide and the conscience of the court is not satisfied and refused to entertain the petition saying "you avail other remedies".

Meanwhile, a letter petition was filed before Chief Justice N V Ramana seeking withdrawal of adverse remarks made by a Supreme Court bench against Sharma.

The letter petition said that it be treated as a PIL and the adverse remarks made during the hearing be declared as "uncalled for".