2 July 2022

The Supreme Court rejected Nupur Sharma’s appeal after she stated that “FIRs and death threats were a clear and coordinated campaign aimed at silencing me.”

“The FIRs and the death threats are a clear and coordinated campaign intended to;  silence Petitioner’s right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under; Article 19 (3) (a), and right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed under; Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950,” Nupur Sharma argued; in her appeal before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed today.

She continued by claiming that; malicious individuals intentionally altered the tape of her TV discussion, emphasized it, and spread it on other social media websites.

In summary, the petition claims that it was the malicious and intentional distribution of doctored film that led to the filing of FIRs and threats, not the petitioner’s observations, which led to the current predicament.

The suspended BJP leader had asked for the FIRs filed against her in many states to be transferred to Delhi for inquiry, but a Supreme Court panel made up of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala rejected to consider her request today.

Sharma caused a spat when he made some remarks about Prophet Mohammed during a live TV debate on the Gyanvapi Mosque issue.

As a result of the uproar surrounding the statement, the BJP, the party to which she belonged, suspended both her and another party leader, Naveen Jindal.

Sharma said in her court filing that she and her family members were frequently the targets of murder, rape, and beheading threats, putting their lives and freedom in grave danger.

Sharma further stated in her argument that;  she was an advocate with over ten years of experience at; the bar who appeared before the courts in New Delhi.

“You claim to be a lawyer for 10 years, yet you are making such foolish statements,” Justice Surya Kant said.

The plea also claims that;  to Sharma’s great dismay, many FIRs have been filed against; her in various States for the same purported occurrence rather than; taking note of the death threats and blatant incitement to violence.

Sharma has also made it clear that she neither intended nor engaged in any intentional mockery of religious beliefs.

“Any alleged statement cited in the complaints or FIRs is a reaction to a significant provocation made during a live television discussion. The aforementioned FIRs filed in full defiance of the ruling rendered in; Ramji Lal Modi v. the State of U.P. by; the Constitution Bench of this Honorable Court’s five justices “The petition further said.

According to further information provided to the court, Sharma just aimed to let the other panellists know that; their attempts to disparage a particular group’s religious views were unfair and invalidated the discussion.

Read more blogs and news@advocatetanwar.com


The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.