Supreme Court’s wrath against Nupur Sharma, but patriots expect Justice !

H.H. (Advocate) Suresh Kulkarni

1.The Supreme Court expressed anger over Nupur Sharma and asked her to apologise to the country

Former BJP Spokesperson Nupur Sharma has been accused of making comments hurtful to Muslims while speaking to a news channel. As a result, many offences were registered against her in various States such as Maharashtra, Kashmir and Bengal. It is dangerous for her to travel since she is receiving death threats. She had, therefore, filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking transfer of cases from various States to Delhi. Her trial took place before a 2-Judge Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant.

At that time, the Judges expressed their indignation at petitioner Nupur Sharma. Justice Surya Kant said, “She is solely responsible for receiving threats. She is also responsible for what is going on in the country now. We watched the discussion on news channels. We know how they (religious fanatics) were provoked. Nupur Sharma should apologise to the entire country. Why did they (the news channel) select this subject ?”

Justice Surya Kant also asked, “When you register offences against others, you arrest them immediately. The Police did not dare to intervene when a case was registered against Sharma. It shows her (Nupur Sharma’s) stubborn and arrogant nature. She is the party Spokesperson. She might have thought what will happen when power is behind you, we can make any statement without respect for the law. Nupur Sharma’s controversial statement led to the death of a tailor in Udaipur (Kanhaiya Lal)”.

As you may be aware, Nupur Sharma is receiving death threats for a statement which is based on a religious book. In this regard, Kanhaiya Lal’s son had uploaded a message in support of Nupur on the social media. As a result, two fanatics brutally killed Kanhaiya Lal with a butcher’s knife. Considering that there is a big conspiracy behind this, it is now being investigated by National Investigation Agency (NIA).

2. The Court cases against MF Hussain (Hindu-hater who made nude paintings of Hindu Deities) and Dr Zakir Naik were clubbed from different States to one place; but the same justice was denied to Nupur Sharma

The law stipulates that when more than one criminal or civil lawsuit, grievance and lawsuits on the same incident are filed in more than one State, they should all be tried in a single State Court. Dozens of such orders have been passed before. (For example, cases against anti-Hindu painter MF Hussain, Dr Zakir Naik, Akbaruddin Owaisi). Anti-Hindu painter MF Hussain had ridiculed Hindu Deities such as Shiva, Seeta and Hanuman by making nude paintings of them. Not only this, he also made nude paintings of Bharat Mata (Mother India).

Being tolerant, the Hindus did not take the law into their own hands like the religious fanatics do. Hindus formally filed criminal petitions and complaints against Hussain in several States. At that time, a petition was filed for 1,250 such complaints to be shifted to one place instead of being in various Courts. The petition was accepted and an order was passed that all complaints and criminal cases against Hussain be tried in one State. All related cases were later revoked as fundamental rights and freedom under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Dr Zakir Naik had incited jihadi and terrorist acts. Criminal petitions were filed across the country against him for mocking Deity Ganapati. A petition was filed to shift all cases to one place. Similarly, all these cases were clubbed in one place. The third example is of MIM party leader Akbaruddin Owaisi; he had said, “Remove the Police for 15 minutes, we will finish off 100 crore Hindus”. Some petitions were filed against him. They were also clubbed in one place. Not only were the cases filed in one place, but the Court went to the extent of saying, “It is not a crime for him to make such a statement”.

3. Why one justice system for fanatics and another system for Hindu Saints and leaders ?

Thus, when there was a law or ideology of the Judiciary, the Judges told Nupur Sharma that they (the Muslim community) were displeased with her provocation. So, you should apologise to the country”. Why was the Court so strict with Nupur Sharma ? At that time, was such an observation made when anti-Hindu MF Hussain demanded that all cases be heard in a single Court.

When the cases against Dr Zakir Naik, who inspired the terrorists in Bangladesh for the bomb blasts, demanded the clubbing of all cases, was he asked the same question ? Such questions may come to the minds of citizens. Therefore, one may also ask whether rights have been granted by the Constitution to a particular class of people ? They have the right to preserve the spirit of their religion; but, is it not for the Hindus ? Because no action is taken against fanatics who make such provocative statements; do their statements not amount to ‘hate speech’ ?

If Hindu Saints and leaders make slightly different statements, why are they lectured that it is the job of the Hindus to maintain law and order ? Many such aspects arise here. It is not the intention of taking Nupur Sharma’s side, but here I remember a sentence in the context of justice – ‘Justice is not only required to be done, but it should seem to have been done’.

If Hindus make a statement, they do not have basic rights because they are hurting the sentiments of fanatics. However, when religious fanatics take the law into their own hands and brutally kill a Hindu, the Hindus are held responsible.

4. Despite accepting the demands of Muslims at the time of Independence of the country, religious fanatics killed millions of Hindus, should Mohandas Gandhi be held responsible for it ?

Freedom fighters demanded Independence from the British; hence, the Muslims asked for a separate country (Pakistan). After this, religious fanatics killed Hindus and raped Hindu mothers and sisters. In retaliation, riots broke out at Naukhali. From the Mopalah rebellion till Independence and even after this was achieved, fanatics massacred Hindus.

Each time, Mohandas Gandhi not only sided with the fanatics, but gave crores of Rupees to Pakistan. In response, Nathuram Godse assassinated Mohandas Gandhi. Should it be said here that, ‘Since Indians demanded Independence, fanatics demanded an independent country; even after getting an independent country at that time, Hindus were killed, then Hindus should not have demanded Independence ?’ Can the same surmise be applied to the assassination of Gandhi by Nathuram Godse ? It will not be wrong if someone raises this question.

5. Judges should decide the petition from all angles

The main question is, what are the cases before the Judges ? Similarly, is there any reference to some earlier judgment in favour of the petitioner ? That too should be considered. In that case, the petition should be allowed or disallowed. But, while adjudicating the petition, should the petitioner alone be held responsible for all the illegal acts committed by the religious fanatics without giving any order following it ? Fanatics have not only killed Kanhaiya Lal Teli (the tailor in Udaipur, Rajasthan), but also resorted to violence in hundreds of places all over the country. A question arises – Should we at all talk about the violence of the rioters or the sentiments of those who take law into their hands ?

Following Justice Surya Kant’s remarks on Nupur Sharma’s case, some patriotic citizens have started lodging complaints and petitions with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Union Minister for Law and Justice. The verdict has sparked outrage in the Nation and among the devout Hindus.

– H.H. (Advocate) Suresh Kulkarni (Founder Member, Hindu Vidhidnya Parishad and Advocate in Bombay High Court)

Background of Justice Surya Kant

‘Is Justice Surya Kant suitable for appointment as the Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh ?’ – this was discussed in 2018. The names of Rajendra Menon and Pradip Nandarajog were recommended in December 2018 when Justice Madan Lokur was in the Collegium (a process of selecting Supreme Court Justices). At that time, on 12th January 2018, Justice AK Goyal was in the Supreme Court. He is understood to have written a letter to the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Deepak Mishra, opposing Justice Surya Kant’s appointment. In his letter, Justice AK Goyal said, ‘Justice Surya Kant should not be sent as the Judge of Himachal Pradesh’. Without considering this letter, JusticeSurya Kant was appointed as the Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh on 3rd October 2018. (Information on this is available on the relevant website.)

Later, Justice Madan Lokur retired and Justice Arun Mishra came into the Collegium. In January 2019, the previous two names were dropped from the promotion quota of the Supreme Court by just one year. Instead, the names of another Judge and Justice Surya Kant were announced for the post of Supreme Court Justices, and then, to the Supreme Court. While the discussion on Justice Surya Kant’s promotion was going on, senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan sent a letter to the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. He cited Justice AK Goyal’s letter about Justice Surya Kant’s inquiry.

Justice Surya Kant will be the 53rd Chief Justice of India in the Year 2025-26.

When religious fanatics take the law into their own hands and brutally kill a Hindu, the Hindus are held responsible !

Leave a Comment