Supreme Court clubs all FIRs against Nupur Sharma; Delhi cops to probe | India News
[ad_1]
NEW DELHI: In an order that mirrored the relief granted to Mohammad Zubair in multiple FIRs, the Supreme Court on Wednesday swept aside the West Bengal government’s objections to club all existing and future FIRs against Nupur Sharma for her alleged blasphemous statement against the Prophet and ordered that these be investigated only by a special cell of the Delhi Police.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala, which had earlier turned down Nupur’s plea for relief, reiterated its conviction about serious threat to life and liberty faced by her from instances narrated by her counsel Maninder Singh and said that it would be very difficult for her to travel to the states concerned to approach the high courts to seek quashing of the FIRs lodged there. It also protected her from arrest in any of the FIRs.
Justice Kant was part of the bench which had on July 20 ordered clubbing of all present and future FIRs lodged against Alt News co-founder Zubair in Uttar Pradesh or any other state with the FIR at Delhi for his alleged offensive tweets against Hindu deities and given him the liberty to move the Delhi HC to seek quashing of FIRs registered at any place for the same tweets.
On Wednesday, Justices Kant and Pardiwala followed the contours of the relief granted to Zubair, and ordered that Sharma could move the Delhi HC to seek quashing of the FIRs lodged against her in any state for allegedly making a blasphemous statement on May 26 during a TV debate.
The West Bengal government strenuously opposed clubbing of FIRs and demanded that its police be allowed to probe the FIRs lodged in the state which witnessed maximum number of violent incidents because of Sharma’s alleged blasphemous statement. For the state, senior advocate Menka Guruswamy said, “We will give whatever security she needs (when she goes to WB to join the investigation).”
The bench said, “Let us not create a situation where you are under stress, the system is under stress and states are under stress. We are of the view that we will not entertain any prayer for quashing of FIRs as the HCs have ample powers to deal with such requests. The clubbing of FIRs is necessitated because of these grave circumstances, which we have illustratively mentioned in our July 19 order.”
Guruswamy then suggested a joint SIT of WB and Delhi Police and then a court-appointed SIT for probing the clubbed FIRs against Sharma. She pleaded with the court to supervise such SIT probe as the bench said that it could direct the Delhi Police Commissioner to set up an SIT.
Justice Kant said, “Monitoring of SIT probe by a HC or SC, I believe, puts undue and undesirable pressure on the investigating team. Probe agencies should have complete independence and a dispassionate atmosphere for investigation.”
Not giving up on her efforts to be part of the probe into FIRs against Sharma, Guruswamy said, “What has happened to…the rule of law and our constitutional democracy?” The bench said, “That we think, the states and constitutional authorities will take care of.”
Persisting with her line of argument, Guruswamy said, “Some states are supporting this conduct. That is the problem here.” The bench said, “Unfortunately, that issue is not before us and it would not be desirable to give any comment on that.”
The court said the first FIR against Sharma lodged in Mumbai be transferred to Delhi and clubbed with the FIR lodged by Sharma alleging that she was facing threats to her life immediately after the telecast of the TV debate in which she made the purported blasphemous comment after being allegedly provoked by a Muslim cleric. “Other FIRs lodged in different parts of the country against her for the same comment be also clubbed with these two FIRs,” the bench ordered.
When the SC was about to direct the setting up of a special investigation team by the Delhi Police, Singh informed the court that the Delhi FIR is being investigated by Intelligence Fusion & Strategic Operations (IFSO) of Delhi Police, a special probe unit. The SC ordered that IFSO would investigate all the clubbed FIRs.
When Guruswamy interjected to insist that IFSO should take assistance from state police, the SC said, “If IFSO needs assistance, it would surely seek. We do not want to put any conditions on the investigating agency. It can seek information from any agency to reach a logical conclusion after a thorough investigation.”
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala, which had earlier turned down Nupur’s plea for relief, reiterated its conviction about serious threat to life and liberty faced by her from instances narrated by her counsel Maninder Singh and said that it would be very difficult for her to travel to the states concerned to approach the high courts to seek quashing of the FIRs lodged there. It also protected her from arrest in any of the FIRs.
Justice Kant was part of the bench which had on July 20 ordered clubbing of all present and future FIRs lodged against Alt News co-founder Zubair in Uttar Pradesh or any other state with the FIR at Delhi for his alleged offensive tweets against Hindu deities and given him the liberty to move the Delhi HC to seek quashing of FIRs registered at any place for the same tweets.
On Wednesday, Justices Kant and Pardiwala followed the contours of the relief granted to Zubair, and ordered that Sharma could move the Delhi HC to seek quashing of the FIRs lodged against her in any state for allegedly making a blasphemous statement on May 26 during a TV debate.
The West Bengal government strenuously opposed clubbing of FIRs and demanded that its police be allowed to probe the FIRs lodged in the state which witnessed maximum number of violent incidents because of Sharma’s alleged blasphemous statement. For the state, senior advocate Menka Guruswamy said, “We will give whatever security she needs (when she goes to WB to join the investigation).”
The bench said, “Let us not create a situation where you are under stress, the system is under stress and states are under stress. We are of the view that we will not entertain any prayer for quashing of FIRs as the HCs have ample powers to deal with such requests. The clubbing of FIRs is necessitated because of these grave circumstances, which we have illustratively mentioned in our July 19 order.”
Guruswamy then suggested a joint SIT of WB and Delhi Police and then a court-appointed SIT for probing the clubbed FIRs against Sharma. She pleaded with the court to supervise such SIT probe as the bench said that it could direct the Delhi Police Commissioner to set up an SIT.
Justice Kant said, “Monitoring of SIT probe by a HC or SC, I believe, puts undue and undesirable pressure on the investigating team. Probe agencies should have complete independence and a dispassionate atmosphere for investigation.”
Not giving up on her efforts to be part of the probe into FIRs against Sharma, Guruswamy said, “What has happened to…the rule of law and our constitutional democracy?” The bench said, “That we think, the states and constitutional authorities will take care of.”
Persisting with her line of argument, Guruswamy said, “Some states are supporting this conduct. That is the problem here.” The bench said, “Unfortunately, that issue is not before us and it would not be desirable to give any comment on that.”
The court said the first FIR against Sharma lodged in Mumbai be transferred to Delhi and clubbed with the FIR lodged by Sharma alleging that she was facing threats to her life immediately after the telecast of the TV debate in which she made the purported blasphemous comment after being allegedly provoked by a Muslim cleric. “Other FIRs lodged in different parts of the country against her for the same comment be also clubbed with these two FIRs,” the bench ordered.
When the SC was about to direct the setting up of a special investigation team by the Delhi Police, Singh informed the court that the Delhi FIR is being investigated by Intelligence Fusion & Strategic Operations (IFSO) of Delhi Police, a special probe unit. The SC ordered that IFSO would investigate all the clubbed FIRs.
When Guruswamy interjected to insist that IFSO should take assistance from state police, the SC said, “If IFSO needs assistance, it would surely seek. We do not want to put any conditions on the investigating agency. It can seek information from any agency to reach a logical conclusion after a thorough investigation.”
[ad_2]
Source link
