REASONS BEHIND CRITICISM OF ORAL COMMENTS MADE BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE NUPUR SHARMA CASE
First, there is a clear danger in the skewed causality that the court used in observing that Sharma's offensive remarks against Prophet Muhammad were “single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country". This could be seen as judicial approval of blaming her comments for the violent protests that arose and more recently, the murder of a Hindu tailor in Udaipur for allegedly supporting her remarks. Moreover, she has been receiving death threats, with even calls made for her beheading. Given this backdrop, the court's remarks could easily be seen as reinforcing the case for the radical impulse, the threat of violence and the gory evidence of actual violence as a response to the offensive comments made in a TV studio. It's hard to find which form of modern jurisprudence treats verbal excess amounting to religious hurt as a valid ground for perpetration of violence, arson and calls for beheading. By this line of reasoning, if the French teacher Samuel Paty and the slain Charlie Hebdo journalists were alive today, could they be held "single-handedly responsible" for all forms of possible violent acts done to protest against them and their suspected supporters?
The highly problematic cause-and-effect premise in the court's remarks neither aligns with reasonable causality nor proportionality. Instead of being a deterrent against violent responses to religious hurt, the remarks unwittingly validate it. In doing so, it could end up playing an unintended part in emboldening violent responses to a range of possible hurt to religious beliefs.
2)Diversion from the main topic
Second, the court's observations imply an uneven application of the idea of the context in judging extreme responses. The petitioner had sought to explain her offensive comments as an angry reaction to her deity being insulted by the other panellist in a TV debate. While the court wasn't inclined to consider this as an explanation for her offence, it somehow saw the violent protests and the Udaipur killing in the context of the religious hurt caused by comments made in a TV studio. If one considers that recourse to context can be a contentious ground to explain offence, its inconsistent use makes it more problematic. The court’s remarks gave an impression that the context of hurt religious sentiment was acceptable as grounds for physical violence but the hurt religious sentiment couldn't be the context for the offensive remarks made in reaction. This ends up giving precedence to one context over the other.
3)Chilling effect on Freedom of free speech
The spirit of freedom of free speech is to prevail truth in any matter so Supreme Court is the highest authority to protect free speech in India and it has been proven in many cases but know in the nupur Sharma case judgment and oral comments it has delivered that freedom of free speech has several limitations this itself makes many psychological limitations on free speech and many unanswered questions will become unanswered and this may follow as religious practices
Besides these three problematic aspects of the Supreme Court's observations, questions have been raised about its unwarranted indignation at the petitioner’s right to ask for the clubbing together of FIRs against her. The legal contentions, however, are regular arguments about the merits of the plea. But the problematic remarks of the court may take a life of their own for reasons that challenge reasonableness.
Casualty, at its core, is one of the great attainments of human reasoning. If its sustained application in the physical world opened new vistas for modern science, its application to human affairs moulded modern jurisprudence and justice delivery systems. It's a pity that the Supreme Court's observations this week didn’t offer casualty due to rigour and sanctity & many constitutional morals
