Clubbing of FIRs in Nupur Sharma case not on merits but threat perception: Supreme Court reserves order in Navika Kumar plea

The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its order in the plea by Times Now anchor Navika Kumar seeking clubbing of the cases registered in connection with the controversial remarks made against Prophet Muhammed on a programme she was moderating [Navika Kumar vs Union of India and ors]..A Bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari, however, orally opined that the nature of the relief sought cannot be the same as that given in former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma's case (who had made the remarks in question), as Sharma's case was not decided on merits but due to a threat perception.Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for Kumar, sought that the complaints be clubbed and transferred to one State in line with the Arnab Goswami and Nupur Sharma cases.To this Justice Shah remarked, "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 Supreme Court had last month ordered that no coercive action can be taken against Navika Kumar in connection with the cases registered against her for a show in Nupur Sharma made derogatory remarks against Prophet Muhammad.A Bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli also issued notice to the State of West Bengal and others in the case.Kumar, who has been booked in Maharashtra, West Bengal, Delhi and Jammu and Kashmir, moved the apex court seeking quashing of the cases or clubbing of the same and transfer to one state.Sharma's controversial remarks on a Times Now show had created a furore and even led to some Islamic nations summoning Indian ambassadors and high commissioners. The ruling BJP government had distanced itself from Sharma and also suspended her.The Supreme Court had already issued notice on a similar plea by Sharma after first information reports (FIRs) were registered against her in different parts of the country for the remarks, and also granted her interim protection from arrest. During the initial hearing of Sharma's petition on July 1, the Supreme Court had refused to entertain the plea and made strong remarks against her.The Bench had remarked that Sharma was single-handedly responsible for fanning flames across India and that she should apologise to the whole nation..At today's hearing, Kaul at the outset submitted, "All the offences in Nupur Sharma case have also been transferred to Delhi. I was only the anchor." Justice Shah replied, "No, no. all cases cannot go to Delhi." Kaul then pointed out that all the FIRs were for the same telecast and more complaints will be filed at this rate and they would have to move different courts for quashing. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, Jammu & Kashmir, Maharashtra, and Delhi governments, supported this. "Yes. Logically they should go to the same [State/police]". Kaul then cited precedent to state that the top court has held that complaints arising out of the same offence are to be clubbed. Justice Shah refuted this by stating that in the Arnab Goswami judgment only one case was set aside. The judge then gave the example of a deposit scheme fraud, where each depositor's case would be different. Counsel for West Bengal, advocate Ravinder Singh, sought time to put a formal affidavit on record with details of the FIRs filed in other States. As the hearing drew to a close Justice Shah orally said,"It's good they have not asked for quashing all complaints but only transfer". Kaul asked that interim protection like in the case of Sharma be considered. .[Follow our coverage of today's hearing]