Prophet Remarks Row : Supreme Court Reserves Order On Navika Kumar's Plea Seeking Clubbing Of FIRs

The Supreme Court, on Friday, reserved its order in the petition filed by the Times Now anchor, Navika Kumar, seeking clubbing of the multiple FIRs/complaints registered against her over the remarks made by Nupur Sharma about Prophet Muhammed on the Times Now channel. A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari heard the matter. 

On August 8, the Court had granted interim protection to her on the FIRs while issuing notice in the petition.

In today's hearing, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishen Kaul, appearing for Kumar, relied upon the order passed on August 10 granting relief to Nupur Sharma, whereby all the FIRs against her were transferred to Delhi. The senior counsel also pointed out that the relief was extended with respect to future FIRs as well. He stated–

"There is no prejudice being caused to anyone. The FIR has the same set of accused, including Nupur Sharma. So if the complainant is saying that he has to come down and inconvenience is caused, that's wrong...After that, all future complaints are also there. The reason you transferred these matters was this. Now if they again take coercive measures, petitioner will have to again rush here."

However, Justice Shah expressed reservations regarding granting relief for future FIRs, saying that the relief granted to Nupur Sharma was in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, considering the threat perception. He stated that the transfer of those cases was not done on merits of the case. Justice Shah further said that such an order for future FIRs might set a precedent for other matters as well. 

Justice Shah remarked–

"You can come here, we'll consider when other FIRs are filed. The cases were transferred on threat perception, not on merits...Here the entire investigation is transferred. If in one case the question is with respect to this, in other cases it may follow. Suppose it's a case of scam, so far as deposits are considered, each transaction is a different one. But this is altogether different."

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, Governments of NCT of Delhi, Maharashtra and Jammu & Kashmir submitted that the bench may add the phrase "with respect to this telecast". SG also pointed out to the order passed in Arnab Goswami's case with respect to multiple FIRs.

Justice Shah replied that in Arnab Goswami case what was done was the quashing of the subsequent FIRs while sustaining the first one, instead of transferring the investigation to one state police agency.

Advocate Ravinder Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal stated that all FIRs were not on record and he would place all such material on record.

While concluding the hearing, the bench reserved order in the matter.

Case Title: Navika Kumar v UOI W.P.(Crl.) No. 286/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order