Priyanka Singh
Published on: September 17, 2022 at 17:22 IST
In the pleas by Times Now anchor Navika Kumar, which sought the collaboration of the cases registered in relation to the Nupur Sharma case, the Supreme Court reserved its order on Friday.
The bench of Justice M.R Shah and Justice Krishna Murari remarked that the clubbing of cases sought as in the Nupur Sharma’s Case cannot be given in the current cases as “Sharma’s case was not decided on merits but due to a threat perception. “
Kumar’s Advocate, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, prayed for a resort of collaboration of all complaints and that, they should be transferred to one State following the Arnab Goswami and the Nupur Sharma cases.
Justice Shah stated that, “We cannot say that … Where is the question of transfer? … You’re most welcome to [move Courts for quashing]. We cannot do this. You can come we will consider as and when. That order [Sharma] was passed in peculiar facts and circumstances, there was threat perception, correct, not on merits they were transferred.”
The Co-relation of Cases –
In the controversial case of ex-BJP spokesperson, Nupur Sharma, the Apex Court had already issued a notice for the clubbing of cases post registration of multiple First Information Reports (FIR) against her given her statement against Prophet Muhammed aired on the media channel Times Now.
In the aftermath of the airing, Sharma was suspended by the BJP and there was uproar in the Islamic nations as well condemning her words.
Initially, on July 1, the Supreme Court had refused to entertain Sharma’s plea and remarked bitterly on her actions.
A month ago, the Supreme Court had ordered that no coercive action could be taken against Kumar and issued notice to the state of West Bengal and others as well.
At the hearing on 16th September, the submission by Kaul said, “All the offences in Nupur Sharma case have also been transferred to Delhi. I was only the anchor.”
Kaul specified that the FIRs filed against Kumar were for the same telecast and that, such FIRs will only move to different courts to be quashed. Kumar has been booked in Delhi, West Bengal, Maharashtra, and Jammu and Kashmir.
To this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the governments of Maharashtra, Unions of J&K and Delhi, propped that” it was logical for all the cases to go the same State/ Police.”
To this, Kaul had cited a precedent of the Apex Court where the complaints of the same offence are to be clubbed together.
Here, Justice Shah had refuted the precedent by remarking that there was only one case that was quashed in the Arnab Goswami case. He instanced the case of a deposit scheme fraud, where each depositor’s case would be different.
Kaul prayed for an interim protection for Kumar, similar to that of Sharma.
Advocate Ravinder Singh, the Counsel for West Bengal, sought duration for putting up a formal affidavit on record carrying the details of FIRs filed in other States.