File Picture : Twitter/ ANI
Supreme Court has in a scathing observation has slammed suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma and says she should apologise to the whole country. Supreme Court while observing has said she and her loose tongue has set the entire country on fire. Supreme Court says her outburst is responsible for the unfortunate incident at Udaipur, where a tailor was murdered
what is the business of the TV channel and Nupur Sharma to discuss the matter which is sub-judice, except to promote an agenda? asked Supreme Court
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Nupur Sharma, tells Supreme Court that she apologised for the remarks and withdrew the comments.
Supreme Court said – she should have gone to the TV and apologized to the nation.
Referring to Nupur Sharma’s apology for her comment against Prophet Mohammad, the SC says it was too late and her remark led to unfortunate incidents.
“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.
“She faces threats or she has become security threat? The way she has ignited emotions across the country. This lady is single handedly responsible for what is happening in the country,” said Justice Surya Kant.
Earlier , Suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma had moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer of all the FIRs registered against her, across several states over her controversial remark, to Delhi for investigation. Sharma says she is constantly facing threats to her life.
SC said Nupur Sharma’s remark against Prophet were made either for cheap publicity, political agenda or for some nefarious activities.
While refusing to entertain Sharma’s plea for clubbing of FIRs lodged against her in various states for the controversial remark, a vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala allowed her to withdraw the plea.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Sharma, said she had apologised for her remarks.
The bench said, ”Her apology came too late and that too conditionally saying if religious sentiments are hurt and so on. She should have been on TV immediately and apologised to the nation.”
The court said her petition smacks of arrogance and that she thinks that the magistrate of the country is too small for her.
Singh said Sharma was spokesperson of a political party and her unintentional comments were in relation to a debate.
”If you are a spokesperson of a party, it is not a licence to say things like this”, the bench said, adding, “If there was a misuse of the debate, the first thing she should have done was to file an FIR against the anchor.”
Singh said she had reacted to the debate initiated by other debators and pointed to the transcript of the debate. The bench said, ”What was the TV debate for? Was it to fan an agenda, and why did they choose a sub-judice topic?”
Referring to various apex court verdicts, Singh said there cannot be a second FIR on the same cause of action. Justice Kant said she has remedy before the high court and can very well approach it, if there is a second FIR.
Singh then referred to the Arnab Goswami case, and said the law has been laid down by the apex court.
The bench said, ”The case of a journalist expressing his right on a particular issue is on a different pedestal from a spokesperson of a political party who is lambasting others with irresponsible statements without thinking of the consequences.”
Singh said she has joined the investigation being conducted by the Delhi police and not running away. The bench said, ”What has happened in the investigation so far? What has Delhi police done so far? Don’t make us open our mouth? They must have put red carpet for you.”
After the hearing for nearly 30 minutes, the bench said it is not convinced with her bona fides and refused to entertain the petition.
