The Supreme Court turned down Nupur Sharma’s request to combine multiple FIRs filed against her for remarks she made about the Prophet Mohammed during a TV channel debate, which sparked outrage across the nation on Friday. Sharma was a former BJP spokesperson.
But before that, Sharma was harshly criticised by the vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala for “igniting emotions across the country” and was made to bear responsibility for “what is happening” in the nation.
Sharma reportedly appeared in court while being represented by senior attorney Maninder Singh and claimed that ‘she has threat’. “She has a threat or she has become a security threat?” Justice Surya Kant remarked on the manner in which she sparked feelings across the nation. This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country.”
Sharma’s controversial comments about the Prophet were deemed “disturbing” by Justice Kant, who also questioned the TV network’s choice to discuss a case that was still pending. The Gyanvapi mosque case was the topic of discussion. Sharma was allowed to pursue alternative remedies after the court ordered her to withdraw her petition.
What court remarked on Nupur Sharma
What purpose does a TV channel serve by discussing a case that is still pending if not to advance an agenda?
The court stated, “She should have gone to the TV and apologised to the nation,” after Sharma’s attorney stated that she had expressed regret for her remarks.
She was too late to withdraw, and even then, she did so on the condition that sentiments weren’t hurt. The petition “smacks of her arrogance, that the country’s Magistrates are too small for her,” said the court.
“These people are not religious. They do not have respect for other religions. These remarks were made for cheap publicity or for political agenda or some other nefarious activities.”
“On her complaint, a person is arrested but despite multiple FIRS, she has not yet been touched by Delhi police,” the SC bench said.
Terming her as a complete ‘loose tongue, the Supreme Court said, “she makes all irresponsible statements and claims to be a lawyer of 10 years standing. She should be apologising to the whole country.”
When Singh said the ex-BJP functionary was responding to a question from a TV anchor, Justice Kant said, “If there is a misuse of the debate, the first thing she should have done was to file an FIR against the anchor.” “When you lodge a complaint against someone, that person is arrested but nobody dares to touch you. That shows your clout.”
Later on in the day, Ajay Gautham, a social activist and leader of the Gau Mahasabha in Delhi, submitted a letter petition to Chief Justice NV Ramana asking for the Supreme Court bench’s “unfavourable remarks” against suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma to be withdrawn.
The petition has requested that the CJI direct the vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala to withdraw their observations so that Nupur Sharma gets a “chance for a fair trial”.
The comments made by a “Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala should be declared “uncalled for and withdrawn,” according to the letter petition. The petition, a copy of which was also sent to the President, aimed to draw attention to the fact that Nupur Sharma will not receive a fair trial as a result of the Supreme Court judges’ comments.
It also claimed that the judges’ comments connecting Sharma’s comment to the beheading of Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur justified the brutal act and amounted to acquitting the killers. The letter petition demanded that all cases brought against Sharma be transferred to Delhi.