“Recent comments on observation by two Honorary Supreme Court Justices overturned Laxman Rekha and forced us to issue an open statement,” the statement read.
Retired Supreme Court justices, officials, and armed forces officers issued an open statement against the Supreme Court’s adverse observation on July 1 against the former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesman Nupur Sharma for his remarks on national television about the Prophet Muhammad sparked violent protests and riots in many states.
The open statement, signed by 15 former Supreme Court justices, 77 retired officials, and 25 armed forces veterans, said the supreme court’s oral observations were too serious to ignore. if the rule of law and democracy need to be maintained and developed.
During Sharma’s plea hearing, a panel of Judges Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala found that suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma “threatened the security of the nation”.
“The emotions aroused by her in a way across the country… by which she is responsible solely for whatever happening in the country.” SC went on to insist to Sharma that she should apologize to the whole country.
“She and her loose tongue burned the whole country,” the court observed. So they asked for the same thing to be recalled.
“Recent comments on observation by two Honorary Supreme Court Justices overturned Laxman Rekha and forced us to issue an open statement,” he added.
Judges Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala on the Supreme Court bench strongly criticized former BJP spokesman Nupur Sharma for her remarks on national television about the Prophet Muhammad.
The bench said that Sharma was solely responsible for fanning the flames across India and should apologize to the entire nation. “The way she stirred emotions across the country.
This woman is completely responsible for what’s happening in the country. We’ve seen the debate about how she was instigated. But the way she was. She said all that and then said she was a lawyer, shameful.
She should apologize to the whole country,” Judge Kant said. The court is hearing Sharma’s request to transfer the FIRs registered against her in different parts of the country to Delhi.
“These words are very disturbing and arrogant. What’s the use of saying such things? These words have led to unfortunate incidents in the country. These people are not religious, they have no respect. respect for other religions”.
These comments are made for publicity purposes or cheap political schemes or other nefarious activities,” the bench said. The court has also criticized the Delhi police for their inaction in the case.
The open statement said such scenes that are not covered by a judicial order cannot be upheld on judicial property and are unprecedented.
“The issue raised has no legal relevance on the submissions in the petition which have unpredictable rules of the timing of justice to get violated,” they said.
Furthermore, it is claimed that through the observation that Sharma was “fully responsible for what was happening in the country”, there was a vindication for the Udaipur killings in broad daylight.
The letter said such an approach by the Supreme Court was unwelcome and affected the sanctity and honor of the nation’s highest court.
“Plaintiff has applied to the Supreme Court to request the transfer of several FIRs registered against her in various Countries in connection with her alleged remarks in a debate on The charges constitute only one offense which is prosecuted (FIR) Section 20(2) of the Constitution of India prohibits prosecution and punishment more than once for the same offense Section 20 of Part III of the Constitution law and is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Honorable Supreme Court in several cases, including Arnab Goswamy v. Union of India (2020) and President Anthony v State of Kerala have established the law that there cannot be a second FIR and therefore no second FIR investigation on the same matter. Such an act violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India,” the statement opened.
