E-Paper
‘Arrogance, clout’: What Supreme Court said as it rejected Nupur Sharma's plea
The Supreme Court said the remark was made either for cheap publicity, political agenda or some nefarious activities.
Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea by former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma to club multiple FIRs registered against her over her remarks on Prophet Mohammed during a TV channel debate that caused strife across the country. But before that, the vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala came down heavily on Sharma for “ingniting emotions across the country” and held her responsible for “what is happening” in the country.
Sharma's comments sparked outrage in West Asia and other Islamic nations, followed by protests across the country demanding arrest.
Sharma apparently appeared before the court under a "deceptive name", as observed by the court, to which her lawyer, senior advocate Maninder Singh, said, ‘she has threat’. Justice Surya Kant then remarked, “She has threat or she has become security threat? The way she has ignited emotions across the country. This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country.”
Justice Kant called Sharma's controversial remarks on the Prophet “disturbing” and questioned the TV channel's decision to discuss a matter which was sub-judice. The debate was being held on the Gyanvapi mosque case.
The court forced Sharma to withdraw her petition with liberty to pursue alternate remedies.
Here's what the court said on Nupur Sharma's plea:
“What is the business of the TV channel to discuss the matter which is sub-judice, except to promote an agenda?”
After Sharma's lawyer said that she has apologised for her remarks, the court said, "She should have gone to the TV and apologised to the nation."
"She was too late to withdraw...and that too she withdraws conditionally, saying if sentiments hurt."
"The petition smacks of her arrogance, that the Magistrates of the country are too small for her."
"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."
When Singh said the ex BJP functionary was responding to a question from TV anchor, Justice Kant said, “If there is a misue 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."
