<p>The Supreme Court’s strong observations on Nupur Sharma and her comments on Prophet Mohammed are an indictment of the former BJP spokesperson and a rejection of all the excuses and justifications she and her supporters have come out with. The court did not mince words when it said she had single-handedly set the country on fire and her words even had the unfortunate outcome of the barbarous killing of a tailor, Kanhaiya, in Udaipur. The court made adverse comments not only about her provocative remarks but also about her conduct, marked by obstinacy and arrogance, and her response to criticism. The court was not convinced of the genuineness of her apology, which was conditional and actually diluted the offence. The bench of Justices Surya Kant and J B Pardiwala dismissed her petition to the court and said she should have apologised to the whole country.</p>.<p>Sharma had wanted the various FIRs filed against her in different states to be clubbed and transferred to Delhi where also an FIR had been registered. The court said it would not give the relief to her as it was against its conscience. The comment was also an indictment of the Delhi police. The aim of the petition for consolidation could only have been to keep the case on ice. The court made the blunt remark: ‘’When she makes a complaint, the person is arrested. But even when there is an FIR against her, she is not touched. Nobody dares to touch you”. This is not only criticism of the slow-pedalling of the Delhi police on her case but also of the quick action the police took to arrest journalist Mohamamed Zubair. Nupur Sharma had blamed Zubair for the trolls against her and the death threats she received.</p>.<p>The court was surprised that she had not been arrested, and observed that she would not be, because ‘’that is the clout you enjoy.” With that comment the court has questioned the police establishment and its commitment to the rule of law. When another bench made some remarks about activist Teesta Setalvad and whistle-blower R B Sreekumar in the Zakia Jafri case, the Gujarat police arrested them within a day. There shouldn’t be one law for Nupur Sharma and another for others. Every remark that the court made about Nupur Sharma should also be taken as a reflection of society’s concern. Many have sought to justify her comments. The court’s words apply to them too. It did well to place the rejection of her request for relief in the right context.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court’s strong observations on Nupur Sharma and her comments on Prophet Mohammed are an indictment of the former BJP spokesperson and a rejection of all the excuses and justifications she and her supporters have come out with. The court did not mince words when it said she had single-handedly set the country on fire and her words even had the unfortunate outcome of the barbarous killing of a tailor, Kanhaiya, in Udaipur. The court made adverse comments not only about her provocative remarks but also about her conduct, marked by obstinacy and arrogance, and her response to criticism. The court was not convinced of the genuineness of her apology, which was conditional and actually diluted the offence. The bench of Justices Surya Kant and J B Pardiwala dismissed her petition to the court and said she should have apologised to the whole country.</p>.<p>Sharma had wanted the various FIRs filed against her in different states to be clubbed and transferred to Delhi where also an FIR had been registered. The court said it would not give the relief to her as it was against its conscience. The comment was also an indictment of the Delhi police. The aim of the petition for consolidation could only have been to keep the case on ice. The court made the blunt remark: ‘’When she makes a complaint, the person is arrested. But even when there is an FIR against her, she is not touched. Nobody dares to touch you”. This is not only criticism of the slow-pedalling of the Delhi police on her case but also of the quick action the police took to arrest journalist Mohamamed Zubair. Nupur Sharma had blamed Zubair for the trolls against her and the death threats she received.</p>.<p>The court was surprised that she had not been arrested, and observed that she would not be, because ‘’that is the clout you enjoy.” With that comment the court has questioned the police establishment and its commitment to the rule of law. When another bench made some remarks about activist Teesta Setalvad and whistle-blower R B Sreekumar in the Zakia Jafri case, the Gujarat police arrested them within a day. There shouldn’t be one law for Nupur Sharma and another for others. Every remark that the court made about Nupur Sharma should also be taken as a reflection of society’s concern. Many have sought to justify her comments. The court’s words apply to them too. It did well to place the rejection of her request for relief in the right context.</p>
