On the 1st of July, ex-spokesperson for BJP Nupur Sharma approached the Supreme Court to save her life. All she wanted was for multiple FIRs filed against her to be clubbed, so she does not have to travel from city to city in order to cooperate with the investigation against her. Her argument? She has been getting death and rape threats constantly and owing to security concerns, it would be dangerous for her to travel.
She did not refuse to cooperate with the investigation. She did not tell the Supreme Court to quash the FIRs against her. She merely wanted her life not be endangered in the process of the investigation.
The Judges of the Supreme Court made shocking observations while refusing to grant her request. She was mocked for being under threat when the Judges asked her if she was under threat or had she become a threat, she was the recipient of sarcasm when the Judges remarked “they must be red carpeting you” to her lawyer saying she was cooperating with the investigation and worst of all, the Judges held her “loose tongue” responsible for the beheading of Kanhaiya Lal by Islamists. Why was Kanhaiya Lal beheaded? Because he supported Nupur Sharma.
The observations by the Judges while dispensing the case did not make it to the written order making these remarks their personal opinions and not the opinions of the Supreme Court – the institution.
OpIndia, on its part, criticised the observations by the Judges, as it should have. As the Editor-in-Chief, I wrote an article where I questioned the Judges, asking them if they would blame the “loose tongues” of their fellow Judges for the threats they receive by Islamists after pronouncing the judgements in certain cases – The Ram Janmabhoomi case, the Hijab verdict, the Gyanvapi case, to cite a few examples.
It should be kept in mind that one of the Judges who made these remarks had earlier pulled up security agencies for not doing enough when Judges are at the receiving end of threats – this is the same Judge who dismissed the threats that Nupur Sharma was receiving.
In another report, we wrote that the Judges had emboldened Islamists. Our earlier headline had said that the Supreme Court had spoken the language of Islamists but once the observations did not make it to the written order, we had to change it and criticise the Judges specifically and not the Supreme Court.
TMC leader Saket Gokhale, who has taken donation money from unsuspecting Muslims to fund his own lifestyle, took offence. Today, he wrote a letter to the Attorney General of India, demanding that criminal contempt charges be brought against OpIndia and me, as the editor-in-chief of the platform and author of the article, because we lowered the majesty of the Supreme Court.
Saket Gokhale claims that we insulted the Supreme Court and “twisted” its observations in the Nupur Sharma case. He is, of course, just saying this. He wants to go after OpIndia and prove a point – when the Judges decide in our favour, they absolutely cannot be criticised.
While we should be terribly worried about the contempt proceedings and what happens if the AG accepts the demands of Saket Gokhale, I write this article today to say, with utmost conviction – We did no wrong and this is a hill I am gladly willing to die on.
First and foremost, the Judges, in this case, extended their brief when they made these observations. They proclaimed Nupur Sharma as guilty in a case where they had no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the case at all. They had to decide if there is sufficient threat against her for the FIRs to be clubbed – as they have done before in the case of Kamlesh Tiwari. Legally, the comments were unnecessary and against their brief. Retired Judge, SN Dhingra, has himself slammed the Judges for their “political comments”.
Retired high court judge SN Dhingra said, “Supreme Court has apparently said that Nupur Sharma was high on the power she had as a member of the ruling party and she carelessly went on to make those comments. As per my conscience, the same things also apply to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court itself cannot hold anyone guilty without any investigation. The case was put in front of the Supreme Court only for transferring the FIRs and not for proving any charges against her. I don’t understand how the Supreme Court can make such oral observations? If the Supreme Court had guts, it would have given those comments as a part of the written order. The Supreme Court has only written in the order that the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Why? Why did the court not include its comments in the written order so that the Supreme Court could be held answerable to the questions like – how is it righteous of you to consider her guilty without any trial of the case, to become a prosecutor yourself, to charge the accused on your own, and declare her guilty only to deliver your judgment orally?”
This absolute shock was not only expressed by SN Dhingra but the public at large. Average citizens who have reposed their faith in the legal system time and again felt dejected and infuriated by these “political comments” by “judges drunk on power” (SN Dhingra’s words, not mine).
Here are some samples:
And these are just samples. One can cite millions of such tweets expressing absolute shock and dismay at the conduct of the Judges. The support that accrued for these observations, unironically, came from the Taliban.
Is it the contention that I have to agree with arguments that the Taliban agrees with simply because they came from two Judges? As a journalist and a woman who has watched another woman be thrown to the wolves by all and sundry, I refuse to submit and I refuse to “behave”.
The upside of this petition by Saket Gokhale is that at least, fundamentalist allies like him have essentially admitted that Islamism is a bad thing. If they believe us saying that the Judges spoke the language of Islamists and that, according to him, is liable for contempt, then he also admits that Islamism should be condemned. I will take that small victory that he and his supporters unwittingly delivered to us.
The other upside to this is we will finally find out if the Courts are willing to treat a Nupur Sharma and a Prashant Bhushan equally. I am but a dispensable cog in the system and an average citizen who picked up her pen because others had sold theirs. I am no Prashant Bhushan who can get the courts to open their doors at 12 AM for a convicted terrorist. The lower court has in the past treated Hindus and Muslims differently, I would hope and pray that the Supreme Court treats Prashant Bhushan and a dispensable journalist the same as well. We will find out, at least. That is a small victory I am also willing to accept as a consequence of Saket Gokhale’s letter to the AG.
Let me state my position as clearly as I possibly can without going into the merits of Nupur Sharma’s case because that is not the purpose of this article. A woman is being told that she will soon be beheaded. She is being told that Islamists will find her and gang-rape her. She is being told that she will be chopped into pieces and thrown in the gutter. The ones issuing these threats have proved that they will act upon it – they beheaded Kanhaiya Lal for supporting Nupur Sharma, they beheaded Umesh Kohli for supporting her and have rioted on the streets demanding “Sar Tan Se Juda”. The Judges, in this case, provided sanctity to the offence that allows them to murder by saying Nupur Sharma was responsible for Kanhaiya Lal’s murder, thereby almost exonerating the Islamists and their religious hate that led to the murder. I, as a journalist and a woman, will not stand quietly. I, as a journalist and a woman, stand by every word I have written against the observations of the Supreme Court. If contempt charges are brought against me – I will fight them. If Bharat, this ancient civilisation, can bring itself to have a discussion around the restraint that Judges should exercise in making unnecessary comments because of my “loose tongue”, so be it. Bring it on.