New Delhi: The Supreme Court minced no words Friday in slamming suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma. It was her remarks on Prophet Mohammad that sparked a controversy in the country. The Supreme Court said her loose tongue has set the entire country on fire and her irresponsible remarks shows that she is ‘obstinate and arrogant’.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing Nupur Sharma, mentioned the plea before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala seeking transfer of all FIRs filed against her to Delhi. However, the bench reprimanded Sharma for making irresponsible comments against a religion during a TV debate. The Supreme Court bench said, “These remarks are very disturbing… shows her arrogance. What is her business to make such remarks?”
Singh then pointed at the written apology issued by her. However, more terse comments from the bench was forthcoming. “This lady has a loose tongue… making inflammatory statements. She should have to go on TV and apologise to the whole country. Please don’t compel us to open our mouth,” the bench told Singh. “It is so disturbing…the outcome is what happened at Udaipur,” the Supreme Court bench added.
Singh said the top court has laid down the principle in Arnab Goswami case to stop vexatious multiple FIRs for the same alleged offence. He stated his client is facing a security threat and it would not be safe for her to travel now. The bench replied, “She faces threats or she has become a security threat? This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country.”
Read Also – Ruckus in Odisha assembly over Nupur Sharma’s remark on prophet
The Supreme Court bench added, “These remarks have led to unfortunate incidents in the country. These people are not religious. They do not have respect for other religions…nefarious agenda…cheap publicity.”
The bench said the remarks show she is obstinate and arrogant, and queried, if you are a spokesperson, ‘you have got license to make statements? Sometimes power goes to head’. Singh insisted that there are multiple FIRs lodged in various parts of India and her client is an advocate with 10 years of practice.
The Supreme Court bench also questioned the police action in the case. It said, “When you lodge a complaint against someone that person is arrested but nobody dares to touch you…That shows your clout.”
The bench also pulled the TV channel for the debate saying, ‘what was the TV debate about? Only to fan an agenda? Why did they choose a sub-judice topic’? The TV debate was on the issue of Gyanvapi mosque. The bench added that on her complaint, a person is arrested but despite multiple FIRs she has not been touched by the Delhi Police.
The top court also expressed its reservation on Sharma bypassing the lower courts and directly moving the Supreme Court. “The petition smacks of her arrogance, that the magistrates of the country are too small for her,” the Supreme Court bench said.
Justice Kant said the case of a journalist on expressing rights on a particular issue is on a different pedestal from a spokesperson who is lambasting others with irresponsible statements without thinking of the consequences. After a thirty-minute-long hearing, the bench refused to entertain Sharma’s petition and asked her counsel to move the high court. Singh agreed to withdraw the petition and the bench granted him liberty to withdraw the petition.
