-Report by Ishika Sehgal
The Supreme Court said on 19 July that no coercive measures be used against her in connection with the numerous FIRs filed in various states about her comments on the Prophet Mohammed during a television channel debate on May 26th. The Court declared that the same relief would apply to any subsequent FIR or complaint that might be filed against her with regard to the same transmission.
The apex court harshly criticized Sharma for her derogatory remarks about the Prophet on July 1, saying that she is “single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country” and that her “loose tongue” has “set the entire country on fire.” Sharma’s remark on the Prophet during a TV debate triggered protests across the country and drew sharp reactions from many Gulf countries. The petition was withdrawn by Sharma’s attorney in response to the bench’s scathing comments. She was later expelled from the BJP. The murder of a tailor in Udaipur by two individuals, who had posted videos online and claimed to be avenging an insult to Islam, had been the backdrop of the court’s observations
against the suspended BJP leader. Sharma filed a new case with the Supreme Court asking for protection from arrest as well as the reinstatement of her withdrawn suit asking for the clubbing of FIRs filed in various states due to her comments on the Prophet Mohammad.
The petitioner has claimed 4 events including a horrific video that has gone viral, Khadim of the Ajmer Dargah calls for the application or petitioner’s throat to be slit, and A resident of Uttar Pradesh created a popular video criticizing the petitioner in an offensive manner and also, she anticipates being arrested immediately as a result of a “lookout circular” from the Kolkata Police that was issued on July 2, 2022. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, Sharma’s attorney, claimed that since the Supreme Court’s order of July 1, genuine and serious life threats have been made against her. As a result of these threats to her life and liberty, Sharma is unable to use the alternative remedy of going before the High Court, as the Supreme Court had earlier instructed.
After taking into account this argument, the bench stated that its top priority is to protect Sharma so she can exercise her legal rights. This Court’s concern was to make sure the petitioner can use the proper remedy as provided by this Court’s ruling from July 1, 2022. Additionally, it was permitted to serve the respondents by dasti notice and through each of their respective Standing Counsels. The court also said that as an interim measure, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR(s)/complaint(s) or the FIR(s)/complaint(s) which may be registered/entertained in the future pertaining to the telecast dated 26.05.2022 on Times Now.