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