August 11, 2022

Nopur Sharma directly responsible for tension, apologize: Indian Supreme Court

Referring to the threats, Nopur Sharma had requested that the FIRs registered in his various areas be transferred to Delhi, but he later accepted the request.

Nopur Sharma

India’s Supreme Court has pardoned Nopur Sharma, a suspended member of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), for uttering obscene words about the Prophet of Islam, directly responsible for the country’s tensions. Instructed to ask.

According to NDTV, the judges remarked during the hearing on Nopor Sharma’s request to consolidate the FIRs registered across the country in one city. From what is happening in the country. They are the only ones responsible for that. “

It may be recalled that last month, Nopur Sharma had made such remarks in a televised debate which led to violent protests in India, while India also faced difficulties at the diplomatic level.

Justice Surya Kant said, “We have seen how he provoked emotions. It is a shame for him to call himself a lawyer. He should apologize to the whole country.”

Referring to the threats, Nopur Sharma had requested that the FIRs registered in his various areas be transferred to Delhi, but he later accepted the request.

Her lawyer told the court that she did not use Nopor’s name in the petition because of threats, to which the judges said she had “threats” or had become a security threat herself.

The court slammed her lawyer on the point raised in Nopur Sharma’s plea that he should be treated “equally” and avoid “discriminatory behavior”.

“When you file an FIR against others, they are immediately arrested, but when they are against you, no one can dare to touch you,” the judges said.

The court said that “these words of the petitioner show his arrogant attitude.”

The judges said, “What if he is the spokesperson of a party? What do they think? Anyone can make a statement in support of the government without considering the law and the land.”

Nopur Sharma’s lawyer said she was answering only one question that the anchor had asked during the discussion.

To which a judge replied, “Then there should have been a case against Anchor.”

When the lawyer referred to the freedom of expression of the citizens, the judges said, “Everyone has the right to speak in a democracy.” In a democracy, grass has the right to grow and donkeys have the right to eat.

The Supreme Court finally said, “If she goes on TV and talks, the matter cannot be laid on the journalist and even if she makes an irresponsible statement without thinking about the fabric of society.” There are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.