Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, July 1: In one of the rare instances of rebuking a petitioner other than in frivolous cases, the Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on the suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma holding her responsible for the threat to the law and order situation and asking her to apologise to the nation for her “irresponsible and disturbing” comments against Prophet Mohammad.
The vacation bench of the justices Surya Kant and J B Pardiwala also refused to grant her any relief asking her to approach the High Court with her problems. Sharma had filed the petition in the apex court to club the multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against her across the country for her remarks on the Prophet. The court refused to entertain her plea, saying that the “conscience of the court is not satisfied,” following which Ms. Sharma withdrew her petition.
The remarks led to a spate of violence, unrest, demolitions and arrests across several states including the recent gruesome murder of a tailor in Udaipur. “The way she has ignited emotions across the country… This lady is single handedly responsible for what is happening in the country,” Justice Surya Kant, leading the vacation bench observed orally.
“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 Surya Kant remarked as senior advocate Maninder Singh pointed out that she was facing threats to life.
The court said Ms. Sharma’s comments were “disturbing.” “What is her business to make these remarks?” the Bench asked her lawyer Maninder Singh.
When Singh said his client had apologised, the court lashed out, saying she should have gone back on air and apologised to the nation. “She was too late to withdraw…and that too, she withdrew her comments conditionally, saying ‘if sentiments hurt’,” Supreme Court remarked. The court said these statements were intended to provoke.
Referring to her approaching the Supreme Court directly, the judge said “the petition smacks of her arrogance, that the Magistrates of the country are too small for her”. “What if she is the spokesperson of a party. She thinks she has back-up power and (can) make any statement without respect to the law of the land. If you are a spokesperson of a party, it is not a licence to say things like this. If there is a misuse of the debate, the first thing she should have done was to file an FIR against the anchor,” the court said. Sharma had made the remarks during a debate on the Gyanvapi mosque issue on May 27.
“She actually has a loose tongue and has made all kinds of irresponsible statements on TV and set the entire country on fire. Yet, she claims to be a lawyer of 10 years standing… She should have immediately apologised for her comments to the whole country,” said the court, dismissing Nupur Sharma’s petition.
“We saw the debate on how she was incited. But the way she said all this and later says she is a lawyer, it is shameful… She should have gone to the TV and apologised to the nation”, the judge said.
Criticising the TV debate, Justice Kant asked why it chose a sub-judice topic. “What was the TV debate for? Only to fan agenda? Why did they choose a sub-judice topic,” he asked. When pointed out that the remarks were in response to a question by the anchor, the judge said there should have been a case against the host in that case.
Singh pointed out that there was no such intention. “It was again and again said that the shivling was just a fountain or a fawarra. This was said by the debater on the other side and not the anchor”. The senior counsel added that “if this is the position then every citizen will have no right to speak”.
In the petition filed in the name of “NV Sharma”, the suspended BJP leader had claimed that the video of her comments was “doctored mischievously” and “shared by anti-social elements.”
Questioned on the “deceptive name” on her petition, her lawyer said she had not used her name because of the threats. The judges snapped: “She faces threats or she has become a security threat?” The court also snubbed Nupur Sharma’s argument on “equal treatment” and “no discrimination.”
The court was also critical of the Delhi Police’s response in the matter and asked “what has Delhi Police done? Don’t make us open our mouth.” “When you file FIRs against others, they are immediately arrested but when it’s against you, nobody has dared to touch you,” the judges said. The court lambasted the Delhi police for giving the BJP leader “red carpet welcome” when they should have arrested her.
Pointing out that her remarks had led to unfortunate incidents in the country, the court said, “These people are not religious. They do not have respect for other religions. These remarks were made for cheap publicity or political agenda or some other nefarious activities.”
Her lawyer replied she had only responded to a question by the anchor during a TV debate. When the lawyer referred to the citizen’s right to speak, the judges replied caustically: “In a democracy, everyone has the right to speak. In a democracy, grass has right to grow and the donkey has the right to eat.”
Nupur Sharma’s argument citing a previous order about protecting journalistic freedom also did not wash. “She cannot be put on the pedestal of a journalist when she goes and lambasts on a TV debate and makes irresponsible statements without thinking of the ramifications and consequences that it will have on the fabric of society,” the Supreme Court said.
