While rejecting the petition of former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma to club a large a number cases filed against her across the country and transfer them to Delhi, the Supreme Court had made several scathing comments against her. While Nupur Sharma is facing death threats from Islamists for allegedly insulting Prophet Mohammad, Justice Surya Kant had actually blamed for the violence unleashed by Islamists across the country, including the brutal beheading of Kanhaiya Lal Teli in Udaipur.
But what comes as a minor saving grace for Nupur Sharma, none of the verbal comments against by the Supreme Court has made it to the formal written order. As the vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala refused to admit the plea, the bench had allowed the counsel of Nupur Sharma to withdraw the petition.
Accordingly, an order issued by the court simply says that the counsel of the petitioner had sought to withdraw the plea, and the court permitted the counsel to withdraw the write petition, who may take alternate remedies available under the law. It does not contain any remarks made by the judges during the hearing.
It is notable that as the petition was not admitted in the court, no order was issued by the bench. Instead, the order informing that the petitioner has been allowed withdraw the petition has been issued by the court master.
Earlier in the day, the vacation bench of the Supreme Court of India had shocked people with remarks on Nupur Sharma. The court had said that she should apologise to the entire nation for the violence by Islamists, because the court deemed that her comments in a TV debate were responsible for the riots and murders. Justice Surya Kant had said, “The way she has ignited emotions across the country… This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country.”
The bench also said that while it is norm to club FIRs when multiple cases are registered for the same offence, Nupur Sharma does not have that right. The court said she had no rights to comment on Prophet Mohammad, and therefore she has lost the judicial right available to common citizens.