New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking censorship of actress Kangana Ranaut’s future statements on social media, clubbing of multiple FIRs lodged against her for remarks against the Sikh community and investigation by Mumbai police. It asked the petitioner either to ignore the utterances made by her or avail remedy under law.

The top court also said that the petitioner, a member of the Sikh community, cannot seek clubbing of multiple FIRs, and only the accused or informant can seek such remedy.

A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Bela Trivedi told the petitioner Sardar Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal, an advocate appearing in person, that the remedy he was seeking cannot be granted under an Article 32 petition and he has to pursue relief under the criminal law.

“There are two possible solutions. Either you ignore the utterances made by her or avail remedy under law. We respect the community. We respect your faith…By speaking these utterances you are doing more disservice to the cause. Don’t try to prejudice the mind of the court. Don’t politicize it. We have read these utterances in your file. You don’t need to speak up,” the bench told Chanderpal when he tried to read the remarks Ranaut had made on social media.

Chanderpal said he has filed an intervention application in the FIR quashing petition of Ranaut and is pursuing it. The bench then ordered, “As regards the first relief...the petitioner-in-person states that he has already adopted proceedings for the purpose of availing of his remedies in accordance with law by instituting a private complaint. In view of the invocation of the remedy by the petitioner in person, we, therefore, request this court to treat the petition in so far prayer A (censoring social mediaposts) is concerned as being disposed of without being expressed any opinion by this court at the present stage. ”

Chanderpal said the actress is going on and on with her “outrageous” and “defamatory” statements that “Sikh farmers were Khalistani terrorists” and had tried to portray the community as “anti-national.”

The bench told him, “Don’t you think that common Indian citizens understand this and know the differences?” Justice Chandrachud said, “For every wrong, there is a remedy available under the law. You are a practicing lawyer in Bombay high court. You have appeared so many times before me.”