Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

Around 15 retired judges, 77 former bureaucrats and 25 army veterans, have released an open statement against Supreme Court’s observations in Nupur Sharma’s case.

The statement notes that the recent comments by the two judges of the Supreme Court have surpassed the ‘Laxman Rekha’ and compelled them to issue an open statement. According to the statement, the observations, which were relayed by all news channels are not in sync with judicial ethos. It notes that these observations, cannot be justified on the grounds of judicial propriety and fairness. It says, “Such outrageous transgressions are without parallel in the annals of Judiciary.”

According to the statement, the observations do not pertain to the issue raised in the petition by Nupur Sharma and traveled beyond the canons of the dispensation of justice. It has been stated that Sharma denied access to judiciary and in the process, there was an outrage on the spirit and essence of the Constitution of India. The statement notes that by such observation there is virtual exoneration of the beheading at Udaipur in broad daylight. The observations also graduate to most unjustifiable degree that this was “only to fan an agenda,” the letter states.

It further says, “Legal fraternity is bound to be surprised and shocked at the observation that an FIR should lead to arrest.” It has been stated that the comments have no precedence in judiciary and are indelible scar on justice system. The statement also calls for  urgent rectification steps, as they have potentially serious consequences on democratic values and security of the Country.

According to the statement, “Emotions have flared up extensively on account of these observations that in a sense dilute the barbaric dastardly beheading in broad daylight in Udaipur – a case under investigation.” It has been stated that such observations are crucification of the essence and spirit of the Indian Constitution. The statement notes that the action of the bench can never be a facet of a democratic society. According to the statement, the observations are too serious to be overlooked if rule of law, and democracy has to sustain.

The statement, while putting forth the position of law pertaining to clubbing of FIRs, notes that the court instead of safeguarding Sharma’s fundamental right refused to take cognizance of the plea. It has further been stated that the bench forced Sharma to withdraw and approach the High Court, knowing fully well that High Court does not have jurisdiction to club the FIRs/cases registered in other States.

The statement concludes by remarking, “One fails to understand why Nupur’s case is treated at a different pedestal. Such an approach of the Supreme Court deserves no applause and impacts the very sanctity and honour of the Highest Court of the land.”