The Supreme Court on Friday held Nupur Sharma responsible for the ongoing controversy over insulting Prophet Muhammad, saying that Nupur Sharma’s “loose tongue” and irresponsible statements have increased religious tension in the country. The court said that she should apologize to the whole country.
The Supreme Court said that BJP leader Nupur Sharma is “fully responsible”, her comments sparked outrage in the country and led to a riot-like situation in India. The Supreme Court bench further observed that the Bharatiya Janata Party leader’s irresponsible remarks not only “set the entire country on fire”, but was also responsible for the horrific Udaipur incident.
Referring to his apology and withdrawal of statements related to the Prophet, the Supreme Court bench said it was too late to withdraw it. “A person was arrested on the basis of his allegation, but despite several FIRs, the Delhi Police is yet to arrest her,” the court said.
The Supreme Court criticized Sharma for her stubbornness and arrogance, saying that because she was a member of the party, “power went to her head.”
These comments are very offensive and arrogant. What right does he have to make such a comment? These remarks have caused tragic incidents in the country. During the hearing, the judge found that these statements were made for cheap publicity, political purposes or other sinister purposes.
The Supreme Court panel made these remarks in response to Nupur Sharma’s transfer petition. In his motion, Sharma said that “her life is in danger because of constant threats” and requested that all proceedings against her in other states be transferred to Delhi. Nupur Sharma said that she often receives death threats from many places.
A vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala rejected Sharma’s request to club together the FIRs lodged in several states for his statement, but allowed him to withdraw the petition. “Our conscience is not satisfied; Please file a petition in the appropriate High Court or follow other legal procedures,” the document said.
In fact, the court questioned the investigation done by the Delhi Police in this case and said that Delhi Police has not yet taken him into custody. “What has Delhi Police done?” questioned the bench.
Hearing the matter, the bench questioned the type of discussion adopted by some channels in recent years and asked, “What was the object of the debate, especially in the matter which was sub-judice?
However, after a lengthy debate, the Supreme Court was not satisfied with the submissions made by Nupur Sharma’s lawyer Maninder Singh, as a result of which the above petition was withdrawn.
