In a shocking harangue directed at suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma, a Supreme Court bench yesterday downplayed the grave life threat she faces and in turn blamed her for “threatening the security of the nation”.
Nupur Sharma was seeking transfer of all the FIRs registered against her in many states for alleged ‘blasphemous’ remarks on Mohammad, to Delhi for investigation – a standard request in such cases when multiple cases are lodged with a political goal to harass someone. The SC vacation bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala turned down the request and asked her lawyer to approach the concerned High Courts in this case. Nupur’s lawyer later withdrew the petition.
When Nupur’s advocate told Supreme Court that she has received multiple death threats, the SC bench said “she has threat or she has become a security threat? The way she has ignited emotions across the country, she is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country…she should apologise to the whole country…she and her loose tongue has set the entire country on fire…her outburst is responsible for the unfortunate incident at Udaipur, where a tailor was murdered.”
With these flippant remarks, completely unbecoming of a Constitutional authority, the SC judges have virtually given a free pass to the two Islamists who brutally beheaded Kanhaiyalal Teli in Udaipur, and to those who murdered Umesh Kolhe in Amravati over the same issue. Even if we hypothetically assume that Nupur did indeed make a ‘blasphemous’ remark, it is the duty of the judiciary to pass judgement on her action in accordance with prevailing laws, not to go off on a tangent and vent their own personal opinions in court.
The SC bench also castigated the TV channel for discussing a matter (Gyanvapi survey) which is sub-judice. By that token, almost nothing can get discussed in the country as almost all issues end up in litigation in our fractured polity. And what did SC do to control the naked agenda setting by left-liberal media outlets and lawyer-activist cabal in cooked up matters like Justice Loya death, Rafale pricing etc?
Not a month passes by when Hindu Dharma and its deities are not denigrated and mocked/insulted by some or the other Hinduphobe. Muslim cleric Ilyas Sharafuddin denigrated the Shivling and mocked Hindus for ‘idol worship’ during a TV news debate recently. Will the SC judges take such hate speech seriously only when Hindus too resort to extra-judicial murders?
Hindus protest and patiently approach the courts to get the offender punished as per law. Yet, we have all seen how our SC intervenes at prodding of the Lutyens ecosystem to get such offenders like Munawar Faruqui off the hook, or to ask Hindus to ignore the most disgusting rhetoric about temples spread by communists.
When Nupur’s advocate Maninder Singh told SC that she apologised for the remarks and withdrew the comments, SC said “she should have gone to the TV and apologized to the nation. She (Nupur Sharma) was too late to apologise and withdraw the statement…she withdrew the statement conditionally, saying if sentiments hurt…power has gone to her head.”
Really? Can the court name one instance of any anti-Hindu figure even offering a conditional apology for heaping scorn on Hindus and their Dharma. Our judiciary and law enforcement couldn’t even hold Akbaruddin Owaisi accountable for his rabid anti-Hindu speech despite clear video testimony, and they are lecturing Nupur Sharma about not being contrite enough, when it was clear that she was only responding with a ‘what if Hindus mock Muslims’ scenario to rebut jeering Islamists like SDPI’s Tasleem Rehmani.
Time and again we have seen sections of the higher judiciary stray away from their core job of giving judgements and interpreting the law, and meandering into sermons about things out of their purview. The SC’s main obsession during the illegal ‘farmers’ protest that blockaded Delhi and inconvenienced millions was to ensure that its image as a ‘liberal, large-hearted institution’ did not suffer. Judges tongue-lashed the government for ‘not doing more’ to defuse that crisis, but refused to pass any orders to get key thoroughfares vacated and continued to sit for months on the findings of the expert agricultural committee they themselves appointed.
The turmoil within the judiciary over the opaque and nepotistic collegium system has spilled out into the open, and even ex-CJIs like Ranjan Gogoi have admitted that judges are routinely bullied by Lutyens’ cabal like Kapil Sibal, Dushyant Dave, Indra Jaising etc. The judiciary is too important an institution for it to be kept aloof from constructive criticism under garb of ‘independence of judiciary’, or ‘judicial majesty’.
Now, Ajay Gautham, a Delhi-based social activist, and Gau Mahasabha leader, has filed a letter petition before the Chief Justice of India (CJI), NV Ramana, seeking withdrawal of these adverse remarks made by the SC bench against Nupur Sharma. Ajay Gautham has sought CJI Ramana’s direction to withdraw the observations made by a vacation bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala so that Nupur Sharma gets a chance for a fair trial.
There is enough precedence of judicial remarks being withdrawn, and it is imperative that the same happen in this case for due process of law to be upheld. Else, we might as well openly declare that only Matsya Nyaya / jungle law prevails and that the Indian state is petrified of mob power.