Nupur Sharma ‘should apologise to the whole country’: SC

Nupur Sharma is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country and she should “apologise to the whole country”, said the Indian Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma stating that her outburst is responsible for an unfortunate incident in Udaipur, where a tailor was murdered.

The apex court further blamed the suspended BJP leader and said that she and “her loose tongue” has set the entire country on fire and she is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country and said she should “apologise to the whole country”.

A bench of justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala slammed Sharma for her statement made during a TV news channel debate and while referring to the Udaipur incident, where two men murdered a tailor, said, “her outburst is responsible for an unfortunate incident.”

Rejecting Sharma’s request to transfer all the FIRs registered against her in many states for her alleged remarks on Prophet Mohammad, to Delhi for investigation, the bench told her counsel Maninder Singh, “No, Mr Singh. The conscience of the court is not satisfied. We can’t mould the law accordingly”.

Senior advocate Maninder Singh appearing for Sharma then withdrew the plea.

During the hearing, when Singh told the bench that Sharma is facing threat to her life, justice Surya Kant said, “She has a threat or she has become a security threat?”

We saw the debate on how she was incited. But the way she said all this and later says she was a lawyer with ten year standing? It is shameful. She should apologise to the whole country

Indian Supreme Court on Nupur Sharma

“The way she has ignited emotions across the country. This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country,” the bench said.

“We saw the debate on how she was incited. But the way she said all this and later says she was a lawyer with ten year standing? It is shameful. She should apologise to the whole country,” the apex court said.

The bench also took a grim view of the TV news channel for hosting the discussion on the Gyanvapi case in which Sharma, who was one of the guests, made the controversial remarks.

The bench also asked what was the business of the TV news channel and Sharma to discuss the matter which is sub-judice. “What’s her business to make such remarks? Except to promote an agenda?” said justice Kant.

Senior advocate told the apex court that Sharma has apologised for remarks and withdrew the comments. To this, the bench said she was too late to apologise and to withdraw the statement.

“She should have gone to the TV and apologised to the nation,” said justice Kant.

“She was too late to withdraw... and that too she withdraws conditionally, saying if sentiments hurt,” the bench added.

The court said that she has made statements without thinking about the fabric of the country, the bench said, adding that she “made statements to provoke”.

The top court also observed that these are not religious people at all, religious people respect every religion.

It also slammed Sharma for her arrogance and said because she is the spokesperson of a party, power has gone to her head.

“The petition smacks of her arrogance, that the magistrates of the country are too small for her. If you are a spokesperson of a party, it is not a license to say things like this,” said the bench.

The apex court also said that she thinks she has back up power and make any statement without respect to the law of the land.

The bench also said that controversial remarks made by Sharma were either for “cheap publicity, political agenda or for some nefarious activities”.

It also asked about what the Delhi police has done after a complaint registered against Nupur Sharma.

The bench said on her complaint a person is arrested, but despite multiple FIRs she has not yet been touched by Delhi police.

When Sharma’s lawyer told the top court that she is joining the investigation and not running away, the bench remarked, “Don’t make us open our mouth.”

“There must have been red carpet for you. A red carpet,” the bench said.

When senior advocate Singh argued that it is settled law that there cannot be multiple FIRs for the same offence and cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arnab Goswami case.

The bench said, “The freedom of a journalist cannot be equated to that of a political spokesperson who is making statements on television and ignites emotions across the country.”

Singh contended that the Supreme Court has laid down the yardstick for multiple FIRs.

The bench then observed, “When you lodge a complaint against someone that person is arrested but nobody dares to touch you, that shows your clout.”

The apex court was hearing a plea filed by Sharma seeking transfer of all the FIRs registered against her across the country to Delhi for her remarks on TV news channel debate about Prophet Muhammad which had led to violent protests and riots in many States.