The former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma’s petition in the vacation Bench of the Supreme Court for relief, seeking clubbing all cases filed against her in different parts of the country, was refused by the Bench. A crisp order read as follows, ‘Learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks and is permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to avail the available alternate remedies under the law. The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.” The majesty of the Supreme Court is unquestionable, and the order was appropriate in the wisdom of the Bench.
However, there were unsavoury observations by the Bench, which is in the public domain and widely covered by the media, which has raised serious questions over ‘equality of justice,’ being a prisoner of the wisdom in the minds of the hearing judges. A dozen FIRs were filed against Nupur Sharma for her blasphemous remarks all over India. The court, unlike earlier in the case of Arnab Goswami ruling in 2020, refused to club Sharma’s FIRs. Her safety in various States for attending the various cases filed on the same matter invited harsh rebuke from the court.
“Does she face a security threat, or is she a security threat to the nation?” wondered the judges. The Bench further stated, “The way she had ignited the whole country, she still has the cheek and courage to come to this court and ask for relief, instead of approaching the respective high courts and trial courts. The lady has single-handedly responsible for setting fire across the country.
The Supreme Court is the ultimate refuge when all other attempts to safeguard one’s life fails. There was a fatwa against Nupur Sharma, and our judiciary, which goes overboard to protect the right to life even to death-row criminals, has disappointed by disregarding the lady’s safety. The abruptness of her retort, which I strongly condemn, was in response to a constant provocateur Taslim Ahmed Rehmani while talking about the longstanding practice of mocking Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Nupur has since apologised, which the court did not bother to acknowledge.
I did not know that a non-Muslim cannot quote Hadith while debating, which would be construed as blasphemous, leading to rape and death threats. Her fault was that she was a spokesperson of the BJP party; therefore, her statement was interpreted as an endorsement by the India Government. Many leaders often utter unprintable rubbish, the party quickly explaining that the erring leaders made such comments in their personal capacity. The BJP did nothing like that to absolve her but promptly removed her from the post. The government also made diplomatic moves to assuage the Gulf countries peeved with the blasphemous comments on Prophet.
Judges of the highest court must try to offer justice and, in any case, not deny justice to anyone knocking on their doors. I can visualise her ordeal in making visits to many courts in the country on a single admitted sin for which she has rendered an apology. We may be failing as a nation in appeasement politics, which the judiciary has unwittingly joined as a player.
I pray that the lordships revisit the matter and revise their earlier order.
Sampath Kumar
Intrépide Voix
