TIME TO DENOUNCE RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM
As widely reported, Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court of India, referring to Nupur Sharma, the former spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party, remarked: “This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country.” The honourable judge of the highest court of the land was responding to the submission of Sharma’s lawyer, senior advocate Maninder Singh, that his client’s life was under threat.
Let us recall that Sharma had already apologised, but Justice Kant was not satisfied: “She was too late to withdraw”; moreover, she had apologised “conditionally,” and that “sentiments” had been “hurt.” Justice Kant added, “She should have gone to the TV and apologised to the nation.” Sharma was pleading for the multiple FIRs filed against her to be clubbed, but the two-member bench presided over by Justice Kant, was not convinced: “The conscience of the court is not satisfied.”
Without questioning the wisdom of the Supreme Court let alone it's ruling, one might wonder, as a concerned citizen of this country, what the implications of Justice Kant’s remarks might be. If Sharma is “single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country”, does this mean that Riaz Akhtari and Ghouse Mohammad, the killers of Kanhaiya Lal, the tailor lynched in Udaipur, are not guilty of the crime of murder? I am sure this is not what the honourable Justice Kant meant.
Implications of Supreme Court judgment & oral comments
1)chilling effect on free speech by a free speech protector
2)Court of public order may get affected because the same opinion of the court is followed by many fellow citizens with the out trail in that particular case
The law of the land will, of course, have to take its course. If so, could Justice Kant have meant that hurt sentiments can justify taking innocent lives, disregarding the law of the land? Once again, I am sure that that is not what the honourable justice had in mind. The only logical conclusion that one might derive, from the court proceedings as reported in the media, is that people holding responsible positions, not just ruling party spokespersons, must exercise utmost caution. Far from losing their tempers, they must not take offence, from social media trials & even when provoked but refrain from hurting religious sentiments and hold their tongues.
But shouldn’t the highest court of the land also condemn those who are quick to take offence, not just those who happen to offend? Are, moreover, blasphemy, sacrilege, apostasy, and such religious offences to be recognised in a so-called secular country such as India? Should those who take offence also take the law into their own hands and administer theologically sanctioned, but patently illegal, punishments, including horrifying and ghastly beheadings — SAR tan se Juda, as the hate-filled slogans go? Perhaps, we shall have to await the pleasure and sagacity of our honourable judges, as also on the right opportunity, to pronounce on such matters? but Blasphemy, sacrilege, and apostasy — such terms and ideas have no place in the modern world
ChJVKSSwaroop
