It’s been over a month since Nupur Sharma first came under the scanner for her derogatory comments on Prophet Muhammad. The Supreme Court on July 1 blamed the suspended BJP leader Sharma for igniting communal tension with her comments and said she should “apologise to the whole country”.
Reports quoted the judges saying, “The way she has ignited emotions across the country. This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country.”
Nupur Sharma made offensive comments about Prophet during a TV debate which sparked massive protests in India and jeopardises India’s relations with Gulf countries who summoned Indian diplomats to issue severe reprimands.
This resulted in Sharma’s suspension as Party spokesperson. Moreover, FIRs have been registered against her in multiple places in cities like Kolkata and Mumbai.
Suggested Reading: Why Was Nupur Sharma Suspended From BJP? Controversy Explained Here
Supreme Court Slams Nupur Sharma
Justice Surya Kant, who was hearing the petition filed in Supreme Court by Sharma requesting a transfer to Delhi the multiple FIRs filed against her citing threats, said, “We saw the debate on how she was incited. But the way she said all this and later says she was a lawyer is shameful. She should apologise to the whole country.”
Nupur Sharma has however withdrawn her petition. Her attorney argued that she did not use her name on the petition owing to the threats. The judges snapped at the counsel and said, “She faces threats or she has become a security threat.”
Snubbing Sharma’s argument on “equal treatment” and “no discrimination”, the court observed, “But when you file FIRs against others, they are immediately arrested but when it’s against you nobody has dared to touch you.”
The Supreme Court further said that her comments reflected her “obstinate and arrogant character” and said that she cannot make any statement without respect to the law of the land.
When her attorney argued that she was only responding to a question by the anchor during a television debate, the court dismissed it and said that there should have been a case against the host as well.
The court shut down her attorney’s argument referring to the citizens’ right to speak. The judges replied, “In a democracy, everyone has the right to speak. In a democracy, grass has the right to grow and the donkey has the right to eat.”
The suspended BJP leader’s argument about protecting journalistic freedom did not stand ground in court either. The Supreme Court cracked down on her saying, “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.”
Suggested Reading: “I Take Back My Words,” Why Wait Till There Is An Outrage?