‘SC’s Nupur Sharma remarks crossed Laxman Rekha’, says Ex-judges, ex-bureaucrats, ex-Armed Forces officers
Amid the row over the observations made by the judges of the Supreme Court in the Nupur Sharma case, 15 retired judges, 77 retired bureaucrats, and 25 retired armed forces officers issued an open statement against the “unfortunate and unprecedented” comments by Justice Surya Kant & Justice Pardiwala.
A group of former judges and bureaucrats on Tuesday criticized the recent Supreme Court observations against suspended BJP member Nupur Sharma, alleging that the apex court surpassed the “Laxman Rekha” and calling for “urgent rectification” steps.
An open letter has been sent to CJI NV Ramana, signed by 15 retired judges, 77 retd bureaucrats & 25 retd armed forces officers, against the observation made by Justices Surya Kant & JB Pardiwala while hearing Nupur Sharma’s case in the Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/ul5c5PedWU
— ANI (@ANI) July 5, 2022
The signatories include former chief justice of the Bombay High Court Kshitij Vyas, former Gujarat High Court judge S M Soni, former Rajasthan High Court judges R S Rathore and Prashant Agarwal, and former Delhi High Court judge S N Dhingra.
Former IAS officers R S Gopalan and S Krishna Kumar, ambassador (retired) Niranjan Desai, former DGPs S P Vaid, and B L Vohra, Lt Gen V K Chaturvedi (retired), and Air Marshall (retired) S P Singh have also signed the statement which said the SC observations are not in sync with judicial ethos.
The statement signed by 15 former judges, 77 ex-all India services officers, and 25 veterans said, “In the annals of the judiciary, the unfortunate comments have no parallel and are indelible scar on the justice system of the largest democracy. Urgent rectification steps are called for as these have potentially serious consequences on democratic values and security of the country.”
“By no stretch, these observations, which are not part of the judicial order, can be sanctified on the plank of judicial propriety and fairness. Such outrageous transgressions are without parallel in the annals of Judiciary,” it said.
Criticizing the observations, the statement said, “We, as concerned citizens, do believe that democracy of any country will remain intact till all the institutions perform their duties as per the constitution. Recent comments by the two judges of the Supreme Court have surpassed the Laxman Rekha and compelled us to issue an open statement.”
These “unfortunate and unprecedented” comments have sent shockwaves in the country and outside, it claimed.
Noting that Sharma sought access to the justice system before the highest court, the statement said the court’s observations have no connected jurisprudentially with the issue raised in the petition and “transgressed in an unprecedented manner all canons of the dispensation of justice”.
“She was defacto denied access to judiciary and in the process, there was an outrage on the preamble, spirit, and essence of the Constitution of India,” it alleged.
In the observations, there is the virtual exoneration of the “dastardliest beheading at Udaipur in broad daylight,” it claimed.
It further said, “Legal fraternity is bound to be surprised and shocked at the observation that an FIR should lead to arrest. The observations on other agencies in the country, without notice to them, are indeed worrisome and alarming.”
The signatories also defended Sharma’s plea for clubbing all FIRs against her citing previous orders of the apex court.
“One fails to understand, why Nupur’s case is treated at a different pedestal. Such an approach of the Supreme Court deserves no applause and impacts the very sanctity and honour of the highest court of the land,” it said.
Refusing to entertain her plea for clubbing of FIRs lodged in various states against her for the remark, the Supreme Court had on July 1 come down heavily on Sharma for her controversial comments against Prophet Mohammad, saying her “loose tongue” has “set the entire country on fire” and that she is “single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country”.
The bench held that the comment was made either for cheap publicity, political agenda, or some nefarious activities. It said, “What has happened in the investigation so far? What has Delhi Police done so far? Don’t make us open our mouths? They must have put a red carpet for you.”
PGurus is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel and stay updated with all the latest news and views
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
- BJP drops 2-term sitting MP Poonam Mahajan; fields 26/11 counsel Ujjwal Nikam from Mumbai North Central - April 27, 2024
- RBI sets criteria for Small Finance Banks seeking Universal Banks license - April 27, 2024
- 16 Indian crew members on seized cargo ship to be released soon: Iran Foreign Minister - April 27, 2024
Does the denial of relief from clubbing the FIRs, combined with reported observation not amount to throwing an individual to the lynch mob? Similarly whenever an adjudicator comes under cloud the honorable thing to do is recuse, in this case the cloud is so thick that resignation would be most honorable and graceful exit.
My salute to all these gentlemen & hats off to them . Honorable has now become horrible setting up terrible precedence . Any vote bank & appeasement politics in the prestigiuos institution ?
The judges to be demoted for their excessive & unwanted & baseless remarks