Supreme court on nupur sharma case

Not entertaining her plea to club FIRs against her in different states with the one in Delhi over her remarks on the Prophet, the Supreme Court Friday came down heavily on suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, saying she has a “loose tongue” and is “single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country” including in Udaipur where a tailor was hacked to death this week for allegedly sharing her remarks. Stating that Sharma should have “apologised to the nation”, the vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and J B Pardiwala pulled her up for approaching the Supreme Court directly. Nupur Sharma | Sharma’s petition was filed under the name N V Sharma and Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, who was representing her, said this was done because there was threat to her life. At this, Justice Surya Kant said, “She has threat or she has become a security threat? The way she has ignited emotions across the country, this lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country.” Singh said Sharma had tendered a written apology, but Justice Surya Kant said “she was too late to withdraw” and it was done “conditionally saying sentiments hurt”. “We saw the debate on how she was incited. But the way she said all this… and later says she is a lawyer… it is shameful… she should have gone to the TV and apologised to the nation.” “What if she is the spokesperson of a party? She thinks she has back-up power and can make any statement without respect to the law of the lan...

By Nalini Sharma: In 1977, when Justice VR Krishna Iyer of the Supreme Court granted bail to a 27-year-old man from Rajasthan in a two-page order, little did he know that he had penned down 12 words which would go on to become a landmark principle of criminal jurisprudence in India. “The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail,” Justice Krishna Iyer had said. This has since then been popularly paraphrased as the rule of “bail, not jail”. ALSO READ | Last Monday, a Supreme Court bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh felt the need to echo Justice Krishna Iyer’s words from 45 years ago. The bench said that arrest was a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty and should be used sparingly. The similarity between the 1977 judgment and the 2022 judgment is apparent. Though over four decades apart, both judgments from India’s highest court reiterate the same principle — that the liberty of an individual is sacred and that this fundamental right should never be violated until absolutely necessary. NUPUR SHARMA’S PETITIONS BEFORE SC When Nupur Sharma first approached the Supreme Court over a month ago, asking for the FIRs against her to be clubbed together, she did not anticipate the barrage of criticism that was about to come her way. Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala left no hold barred in criticising Nupur Sharma and her remarks on Prophet Mohammed, going to the extent of asking why she hadn’t been arrested yet. The be...

New Delhi: Suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma cannot be arrested in the nine cases against her over her comments on Prophet Muhammad, the Supreme Court said today. The court asked various states to respond to her request to combine multiple FIRs against her into one. The Supreme Court will take up Nupur Sharma's request on August 10 and until then, no new cases can be filed. Delhi, Maharashtra, Telengana, West Bengal, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Assam are the states that have been asked to respond to her case. Nupur Sharma's lawyer told the Supreme Court that she had been facing increasing threats to her life since the court's scathing order on July 1. "There is ever increasing threat to her safety. No amount of security could help her. Whatever happened in Supreme Court last time may have happened. But there is a real and genuine threat now. In Bengal also there is an FIR against her," said Nupur Sharma's lawyer Maninder Singh. After the July 1 order, she pleaded, there had been instances like an Ajmer Dargah employee threatening on video to slit her throat and another UP resident abusing her and threatening to behead her. "More FIRs have been registered in Bengal and the Kolkata police has issued a look out circular against her due to which she apprehends her immediate arrest and denial of opportunity to approach different High Courts to seek the quashing of FIRs," the lawyer said. "There are already laid down laws on how there cannot be multiple...

On Friday, 1 July, I was giving the final touches to an article that I was writing about the American judiciary and Roe vs Wade. I noted with great satisfaction that the Indian judicial system — thanks to its process of appointing judges and its conduct — was less partisan than its American counterpart. Overall, the Indian judiciary has over the years carried itself with a sense of dignity, decorum and responsibility that make us Indians proud. But my self-appreciative arrogance came crashing down when I scrutinised remarks made by a Supreme Court bench hearing a plea by former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma for transferring FIRs against her in many states to Delhi. Nupur Sharma is in the midst of a controversy for her recent remarks that were hurtful to a community. She herself has apologised for her comments. Nevertheless, numerous FIRs have been filed against her in several states and she has been the target of an incessant number of serious death threats that make mockery of the laws of the land. SC stays Allahabad HC order to ascertain whether ‘rape’ victim is ‘manglik’ US Supreme Court rejects race-based challenge to Native American adoption law In order to minimise the threat to her life and for a fair trial, Nupur Sharma had sought transfer of all cases to Delhi. While refusing to provide relief to Nupur Sharma, the two-judge SC bench made certain remarks that should have been avoided. Commenting on the case, one of the judges said: “The way she (Nupur) has ignited ...

By Nalini Sharma: The Supreme Court bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala on Friday made some scathing observations against former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma over her comments on Prophet Muhammad. The bench raised questions on the investigation and asked why Nupur Sharma hadn’t been arrested yet for her comments made on national television. The court also called her apology insufficient, stating that she should have appeared on TV and apologised to the country instead. The petition filed by Nupur Sharma seeking the transfer of the FIRs against her to Delhi has been filed under the name NV Sharma. The order passed by the Supreme Court in the case also records the name as NV Sharma, since that was the name under which the case was listed. Even before Nupur Sharma's counsel had the chance to begin the arguments, the first question raised by Justice Surya Kant, who was heading the bench, was: Why is she here under a deceptive name? Soon after this, the Supreme Court asked, "She has a threat or has she become a security threat?" which then led to a flurry of serious, scathing observations against Sharma and her conduct. NV Sharma possibly stands for Nupur Vinay Sharma, Vinay Sharma being her father's name. The petition has been dismissed by the Supreme Court and she has been asked to approach the High Courts of the states where the FIRs have been lodged, for relief.

Fifteen retired judges, 77 former bureaucrats and 25 former officers of the armed forces have issued an open statement against the “unfortunate and unprecedented” comments made by a Supreme Court Bench of Justices Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala while hearing a plea filed by former Refusing to entertain her plea to club the multiple first information reports (FIR) registered against her in various States, the Vacation Bench had made scathing oral remarks about Ms. Sharma, including that she was "single-handedly responsible" for the violent protests which followed. The open statement said the remarks from the Bench had "sent shockwaves in the country and outside". "By no stretch these observations, which are not part of the judicial order, can be sanctified on the plank of judicial propriety and fairness. Such outrageous transgressions are without parallel in the annals of judiciary," the statement said. The observations made had "no connect jurisprudentially with the issue raised in the petition". The statement goes so far as to say that the court's observations could be perceived as a "virtual exoneration of the dastardliest "In the annals of judiciary, the unfortunate comments have no parallel and are indelible scar on justice system of the largest democracy. Urgent rectification steps are called for as these have potentially serious consequences on democratic values and security of the country," the statement said. Ms. Sharma, by approaching the top court to club the FIRs...

The Supreme Court Tuesday directed that “no coercive action” can be taken against suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma till the next date of hearing in connection with the complaints filed against her in several states over her remarks on the Prophet during a television debate show. The top court also said it never intended the BJP leader to visit every court for relief in the hate speech cases against her. “In the light of the subsequent events, the concern of this Court is how to ensure that the petitioner is able to seek alternate remedy. In order to explore such modality, we issue notice,” said a bench of Justices Surya Kant and J B Pardiwala. On The same bench had on July 1 declined to entertain her plea, saying “To that extent, we are correcting. We did not intend that you have to go all places,” the bench said on Tuesday. Senior advocate Maninder Singh, who appeared for Sharma, had requested the top court’s permission on July 1 to withdraw the plea instead of having it dismissed. The bench allowed the petition to be withdrawn with liberty to avail alternate remedies. Nupur Sharma filed a fresh application on July 18 seeking protection from arrest and clubbing of cases against her. “I beseech your Lordships. The threat is genuine and real now,” argued Singh. “Have we understood correctly that you are willing to go to one place of your choice?” asked the bench. Singh replied that since the first The Supreme Court bench noted that after its order on July 1, various ...

Nupur Sharma, a former spokeswoman of India’s ruling party whose remarks on the Prophet Muhammad and his wife Aisha sparked huge protests and triggered a “She and her loose tongue have set the country on fire,” the Supreme Court said on Friday during a procedural hearing on several criminal complaints filed against Sharma. “This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country,” it added. “She should apologise to the whole nation.” A demonstrator stomps on a poster of Sharma during a protest in Mumbai [File: Francis Mascarenhas/Reuters] Anger engulfed India and the Rallies were held in neighbouring In India, at least two demonstrators – Also this week, police in New Delhi arrested journalist Zubair was arrested on Monday and remains in custody over a four-year-old tweet, depicting an image from a 1983 film which showed a hotel named after a Hindu god. Since her comments, a number of Meanwhile, India’s legal website Live Law reported that a right-wing Hindu group has filed a petition in the Supreme Court, seeking withdrawal of the court’s oral remarks against Sharma. A letter petition filed before the Chief Justice of India seeking to direct the bench headed by Justice Surya Kant to withdraw the oral remarks made against — Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) Sharma’s remarks forced the governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) into damage control. The party suspended her and issued a rare statement, insisting it respected all religions. Since coming to power natio...

New Delhi: A judge who was part of the Supreme Court bench that slammed the BJP's Nupur Sharma for her comments on Prophet Muhammed, today made strong remarks about personal attack on judges for their judgments. "Personal attacks on judges for their judgements lead to a dangerous scenario," said Justice JB Pardiwala -- who was part of the bench that said the former BJP spokesperson needs to apologise to the whole country -- at a function. Both Justice Pardiwala and Justice Surya Kant were targeted on social media by users after their oral comments against Nupur Sharma during the hearing of her plea. Nupur Sharma had gone to the Supreme Court demanding that all the First Information Reports registered against her across the country should be clubbed together and transferred to Delhi. In his address at a function today, Justice Pardiwala said, "Personal attacks on judges for their judgments lead to a dangerous scenario where the judges have to think about what media thinks instead of what the law really thinks. This harms the rule of law. Social and digital media is primarily resorted to expressing personalised opinions more against the judges, rather than a constructive critical appraisal of their judgments. This is what is harming the judicial institution and lowering its dignity. The remedy of judgments does not lie with social media but with higher courts in the hierarchy. Judges never speak through their tongue, only through their judgments. In India, which cannot be de...