- Thursday, May 30, 2024
By: Shubham Ghosh
THE Supreme Court of India on Friday (1) slammed Nupur Sharma, the suspended official of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), saying she was responsible for igniting tension across the country with her remarks on Prophet Muhammad and that she should “apologise to the whole country”.
“The way she has ignited emotions across the country. This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country,” judges of the top court opined.
Sharma’s remarks made on a live television debate saw massive repercussions, not only in India but also abroad. A number of Muslim nations, including many from the Gulf, reacted strongly and even summoned Indian envoys stationed on their soil.
Nupur Sharma row damaged our global reputation, says India’s NSA
Protests were also witnessed in India. In the state of Rajasthan, a Hindu tailor was recently murdered by two radicalised Muslim men for supporting Sharma, which saw angry calls on social media for a retaliation against the minority community.
“We saw the debate on how she was incited. But the way she said all this and later says she was a lawyer it is shameful. She should apologise to the whole country,” said Justice Surya Kant.
Sharma, who was suspended subsequently by the BJP in the wake of the controversy, had requested the court to transfer to Delhi the multiple police cases that were filed against her across the nation, citing threats. She later withdrew the petition.
Her legal representative said Sharma even avoided using her name on the petition because of the alleged threats. The judges of the apex court, however, snapped saying “she faces threats or she has become a security threat”.
The Supreme Court also reacted to Sharma’s argument on “equal treatment” and “no discrimination”.
“But 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 top court also said that Sharma’s remarks showed her “obstinate and arrogant character”.
“What if she is the spokesperson of a party. She thinks she has back up of power and can make any statement without respect to the law of the land?” it asked.
Her lawyer defended her saying Sharma had only responded to a query that the anchor of the debate had made.
“There should have been a case against the host then,” the court said.
When the lawyer referred to the citizens’ right to speak, the judges said, “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.”
“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 court said.
