Nupur Sharma’s lawyer informed that she is in danger of life and requested that all the cases against her should be transferred to Delhi. Apart from this, Maninder Singh told that summons are coming to Nupur Sharma from West Bengal, and these cases were registered even after the Supreme Court’s stay.

  • First case was registered against Nupur Sharma in Maharashtra
  • Separate cases registered against Nupur Sharma in West Bengal, Rajasthan
  • Supreme Court orders, all cases should be clubbed in Delhi

After several separate FIRs were registered following former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma’s remarks on Prophet Muhammad, she had appealed to the Supreme Court to transfer all her cases to Delhi. Now, giving great relief to Nupur Sharma, Justice Kant Bench of the Supreme Court has ordered to hear all the cases in Delhi. That is, different cases registered against her across the country will now be clubbed in Delhi. The first case registered against Nupur Sharma was in Maharashtra. After that separate cases had been registered in West Bengal, Rajasthan and other parts of the country mainly for short political gains by opposition parties.

The Supreme Court said that since this court has already taken cognizance of the grave threat to the life and safety of the petitioner, we direct that all the FIRs against Nupur Sharma be transferred and the Delhi Police be attached for investigation. The Supreme Court said that the petitioner had primarily sought quashing of the FIR and as an alternative, she had also sought transfer and clubbing of an investigating agency for the purpose of investigation. However, the petitioner was removed on 1 July 2022 from taking alternative measures with regard to quashing of the FIR. But the grave danger to her life and liberty may be considered therein in view of subsequent events.

The order was passed by a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Surya Kant. Earlier, the same bench of the Supreme Court, while making a strong remark against Nupur Sharma, had said that Nupur Sharma is the only culprit in this case. After which anger was also seen against the Supreme Court on social media. Making strict comments, the Supreme Court had rejected the appeal to transfer the separate FIRs registered across the country to Delhi.

Who is Justice Pardiwala?

Justice J.B. Pardiwala took oath as a Justice of the Supreme Court in the month of May this year. Prior to this, he was a judge of the Gujarat High Court. As a judge, he had made some comments in the past which were discussed a lot. The comment made during the Covid period is one of them. In 2015, 58 members had demanded the then Chairman and Vice President of Rajya Sabha Hamid Ansari to initiate the process of impeachment against Justice Pardiwala on a remark made on reservation.

Who is Justice Suryakant?

Before the Supreme Court, Justice Surya Kant was the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. On May 8, the five-member Supreme Court collegium sent its recommendation to the central government regarding the appointment of Surya Kant as a judge in the Supreme Court. He took over as the Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh on October 5, 2018. Suryakant was born on February 10, 1962 in a middle-class family in Hisar district of Haryana. His family is associated with agriculture. This was also mentioned by Justice Surya Kant during a hearing.

Earlier on July 19, the Nupur Sharma case was heard in the Supreme Court, in which the court had stayed the arrest of Nupur Sharma till August 10. Today that ban ends. Nupur Sharma’s lawyer told that since she is in danger of life, so all these cases should be transferred to Delhi. Apart from this, Maninder Singh also said that summons are still coming to Nupur Sharma from West Bengal, these cases were registered even after the Supreme Court’s stay. In reply, Lawyer Guruswamy said that Nupur Sharma’s statement has had the biggest impact in West Bengal.

Guruswami: The prayer they are praying in this MA was rejected by this court earlier. Unfortunately, this issue has shook the country. Politicians from both sides have come out in support of this statement. I propose a joint SIT.

Justice Kant: It is too early for us to express anything at this stage. The investigating agency will consider it.

Guruswamy: How can the accused be allowed to choose the jurisdiction?

DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.