Supreme Court's comment on Nupur Sharma- a look

A Supreme Court bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala had today refused to entertain plea by the suspended BJP leader seeking transfer of FIRs registered against her in many states to Delhi for investigation.

Sharma while speaking live in a TV debate, on the Gyanvapi Mosque issue, made certain comments on Prophet Mohammed, which triggered a row.

Subsequently, BJP, the party which she belonged to, suspended her and another party leader - Naveen Jindal amid controversy over the comment.

In her plea, Sharma submitted that she and her family members had constantly been receiving death threats/rape threats/beheading threats which has put her and her family's life and liberty in serious jeopardy.

Here is a look at Court’s observations on Sharma:

Just as Singh started arguing his case, the bench questioned him as to why the plea has been filed under a deceptive name. Singh answered to this by saying that, it was done since Sharma is under threat.

The bench immediately quipped “She has a threat or she has become a threat? This lady is single handedly responsible for what is happening in the country.” The bench further said “She and her loose tongue has set the entire country on fire.”

It is shameful, she was a lawyer:

In her, plea, Nupur Sharma had mentioned that she is a lawyer with 10 years standing in the bar. The bench remarked “We saw the debate! The way she said all this and later says she is a lawyer! Its shameful.” The bench also observed that Sharma should apologise to the whole country.

Arrogant and Obstinate:

The bench went on to say that Sharma is arrogant and obstinate owing to her remarks on the news debate. The bench further said “theses are done by people who are not religious at all.

She thinks she has back up power?

Singh argued that, Sharma’s remark was an answer to the question she was asked. He further said, somebody kept repeating that the Shivling found in Gyanvapi Mosque was a fountain. The bench remarked “What if she is a spokesperson of a party? She thinks she has back up power to make any statements without respecting law!”

In a democracy donkey has the right to eat:

Singh argued that, if such a position is adopted, nobody will have the right to speak in the country. The bench remarked “In a democracy, everyone has the right to speak. The grass has the right to grow, the donkey has the right to eat.”

On Delhi Police:

The court took a very serious view of Delhi police not taking action against Sharma. The bench questioned as to what the Delhi police was doing despite the FIR. It remarked “Don’t make us open our mouth.”

Singh had informed the court that Sharma has joined the investigation in the FIR filed in Delhi. The bench remarked “there must have been a red carpet for you!”

Why are you not arrested?

The bench remarked “When an FIR is filed against someone, they are arrested. But not you. It shows your clout.”

Statement responsible for Udaipur incident:

The bench remarked that Sharma’s outburst is responsible for the unfortunate incident at Udaipur, where a tailor was murdered

Cheap publicity:

The bench also observed that Sharma made these remarks for cheap publicity. The bench said “These remarks are very disturbing and smack of arrogance. What is her business to make such remarks? These remarks have led to unfortunate incidents in the country...These people are not religious. They do not have respect for other religions. These remarks were made for cheap publicity or political agenda or some other nefarious activities."