The Supreme Court of India has blamed former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma for the brutal Udaipur murder and has stated that her ‘loose tongue’ has set the entire country on fire and she should apologise to the whole country.
As per reports, Nupur Sharma had moved the SC seeking the transfer of all the FIRs registered against her, across several states to Delhi for further investigation. Sharma, in her application, stated that she is facing constant life threats.
The apex court, surprisingly, had placed all the blame on Nupur Sharma and her ‘loose tongue’ over the remarks on Prophet Muhammad that were deemed as ‘blasphemy’ by Islamists. The SC has lambasted Sharma saying that it was her and her ‘loose tongue’ that has set the entire country on fire and she should apologise to the whole country.
Blaming Nupur Sharma for the chaos unleashed by the Islamists and the regressive ideas that ambiguously declare any criticism of the Islamic prophet as ‘blasphemy’, the apex court of the country has surprisingly ignored the hatred and violence unleashed by Islamists and has instead blamed the woman who had stated merely what is written in Islamic hadiths, and affirmed by Islamic scholars all over the world.
The Supreme Court of the so-called secular, democratic country, which is supposed to be the conscience of the nation, has shockingly chosen to behave like a Church figure in a medieval witch trial.
It is notable here that there have been brutal murders in India committed by Islamists in the name of ‘blasphemy’ against Islam and the SC is aware of that. Also, the comments by Nupur Sharma were in retaliation to insulting and derogatory comments against the Hindu faith by a fellow panellist, and Sharma had cited instances from the Prophet’s life, telling that those can be said too (if the other side keeps insulting the Hindu faith with derogatory remarks).
The specific reference to the Prophet’s age and the age of his third wife is asserted in Islamic hadiths and is affirmed by Islamic scholars as facts.
The SC has not stopped at just blaming one woman for violence and murder committed by religious fanatics in the name of Islam, it has also refused to grant any relief to Sharma and has rejected her application to transfer all FIRs against her to Delhi.
Ignoring the submission by Sharma’s advocate that the statements in the news debate were withdrawn by Sharma after an apology, the court questioned her right and need to make those statements. Upon reminding that she had apologised, the Court stated that she should have apologised to the whole country on TV and that she was ‘too late’ to withdraw.
Justice Surya Kant stated, “The way she has ignited emotions across the country… This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country.”
In other words, Justice Surya Kant made it clear that for him, it is Sharma’s fault that she spoke in a manner that ‘provoked’ the Islamists, not the Islamists’ fault who have declared openly to behead anyone who they deem as ‘blasphemous’.
The apex court even stated that Nupur Sharma does not deserve the relief granted to the common people of the country (by transferring the FIRs to one jurisdiction). It declared that Nupur had no right to say the things she said in the first place, indirectly justifying the open calls for her murder and hanging.
In short, the Supreme Court of India today declared Nupur Sharma a culprit of blasphemy and essentially validated the Islamic calls for her beheading and murder. They just stopped short of using the words “Gustakh-e-Nabi ki ek hi saza, sar tan se juda’.
Since the Supreme Court has declared that the Udaipur murder, where a Hindu man was killed for just sharing a social media post in Sharma’s support, is Sharma’s fault, it seems that if Sharma herself becomes a victim of violence that Islamists have declared for her, the Supreme Court of this country might actually say that she deserved it.
Update: The headline of this article has been changed as the said comments by the Judges were not included in the written order by the Supreme Court. However, our criticism of the comments holds and the same has been attributed to the judges as they were oral comments not amounting to the official view of the Court.