Verdict without trial and verbal character assassination by the SC bench

How ironic and shameful that a simple plea to seek the clubbing of all FIRs was turned into a ridiculous spectacle in which the Justices were judging one’s attributes and offering character assassination

How ironic and shameful that a simple plea to seek the clubbing of all FIRs was turned into a ridiculous spectacle in which the Justices were judging one’s attributes and offering character assassination
How ironic and shameful that a simple plea to seek the clubbing of all FIRs was turned into a ridiculous spectacle in which the Justices were judging one’s attributes and offering character assassination

What happened in the court is nothing but an attempt to hijack the judiciary and use a politically-driven narrative

Justice is not only denied to Nupur Sharma (NS) but to the nation by the apex court in India. Justices Surya Kant and Jamshed B Pardiwala showed their unprecedented prejudice and abuse of judicial power in giving a guilty “verdict without trial” against NS, who was not even charged for anything except multiple FIRs filed against her. The SC bench crossed all boundaries of judicial ethics, and rule of law, and dragged the Indian judiciary into the territory of being arbitrary and capricious.

In fact, NS through her lawyer had moved the SC seeking the transfer of all the FIRs registered against her in several states to Delhi for further investigation. Her plea was based on a reasonable request for her own safety and that of her family against a barrage of threats. The SC bench, however, rebuked the lawyer stating, “She has a threat or she has become a security threat? The way she has ignited emotions across the country…” What an unwarranted commentary in the highest court that will not only discourage but become a precedence for denial of relief to all well-meaning citizens in the future.

When NS’s attorney cited the precedence for similar court decisions of clubbing multiple FIRs, the Justices were quick to retort, “The case of a journalist on expressing rights on a particular issue is on a different pedestal from a spokesperson who goes to a TV debate and lambasts the other side without thinking of the consequences of such a statement.” Wow!

Is this what we call justice is blind and all citizens are equal in the eyes of the judiciary. A political party spokesperson versus a journalist; both are well-respected professionals and human beings with no history of committing a crime. Both sought relief to club multiple FIRs. One must ask the Justices under oath what will they expect if it was a family member seeking such a relief to avoid knocking on the doors of various courts for an FIR emerging from exactly the same event.

I agree to disagree with their decision not to grant the request but I would have respected it if it was based on evidence. The court observed, “The conscience of this court is not satisfied,” asking NS to pursue other legal remedies. This led her lawyer to seek permission to withdraw the petition. I wonder if the SC is setting new standards of making “loose” observation in rejecting the plea with strong merit and evidence of threats against NS? How irresponsible conduct?

I don’t know where to begin and how best to remain respectful to the “My Lords,” the protectors of rule of law and expected to be independent, unbiased, non-political, blind, and rendering justice for all. It will be unfair to use a broad brush to paint the entire Indian judiciary as corrupt, biased, and capricious but the Justices hearing the NS case deserve to be impeached or at least reprimanded for their abuse and overuse of power and rendering injustice. We will never know if they were under intense political pressure, a threat by the Jihadi elements for their own safety, and/ or “bought” for a price. After all, India is still rife with corruption although getting better.

How ironic and shameful that a simple plea to seek the clubbing of all FIRs was turned into a ridiculous spectacle in which the Justices were judging one’s attributes and offering character assassination. For example, one newspaper headline characterized the court proceedings, “The top court said her (Nupur Sharma) loose tongue has set the entire country on fire and her irresponsible remarks show that she is “obstinate and arrogant[1]. Too many adjectives – loose tongue, irresponsible, obstinate, and arrogant by the two Justices.

Let us quickly review and analyze a few facts about NS’s “factual” statement (presented with the citations) in a nationally televised debate. In fact, the root cause of the alleged statement by NS against the Prophet was the Gyanvapi mosque issue which was heard in SC but sent back to the court in Varanasi. The court decision in the case is still pending.

Who is Irresponsible?

I argue it is the SC for not concluding the Gyanvapi case and then the NS request for clubbing her FIRs expeditiously. The courts could have spared the country from a lot of anguish, violence, destruction, and a gruesome daylight murder of an innocent Hindu by two Jihadists in Udaipur? If My Lords could convene the Court and burn the midnight oil for the infamous “terrorists” like Yakub Memon[2], or “rapists” like the Nirbhaya accused[3], why not set up proceedings and arrest NS when the SC was moved to do so on or around June 14[4]. The SC must introspect its own “irresponsible” conduct by not hearing the case sooner and subsequently two powerful Justices slamming NS for countless unwarranted reasons? Are the My Lords beyond the rule of law themselves?

Who is Arrogant?

Referring to NS approaching the SC directly for clubbing FIRs, the My Lord said: “The petition smacks of her arrogance, that the magistrates of the country are too small for her.” I argue that the My Lord was exhibiting his own arrogance while making the unfounded assumptions that magistrates were “too small” for NS. What is wrong My Lord, I ask, moving the SC for relief rather than approaching each court in different jurisdictions. Any well-meaning citizen deserves the right to seek relief for which the powerful Justices rendered character assassination of being “arrogant.”

It did not end at that. When NS’s lawyer stated that she was facing a threat to life and has to hop from one court to another, Justice Surya Kant shot back, “She has a threat or she has become a security threat? The way she has ignited emotions across the country…” What could be more arrogant and egregious conduct on the part of the Justice when he proclaimed NS to be a “security threat?” Did he have any evidence and/ or witnesses otherwise what business did he have to say so?

Who is using Clout?

Another scathing observation of the My Lord: “When an FIR is registered and you (NS) are not arrested, this shows your clout. She (NS) thinks she has backup power and makes irresponsible statements.” If the law enforcement in Delhi chose not to arrest NS for lack of reasonable evidence or other reasons best known to them, what does it have to do with her “clout’ and “backup power,” or lack thereof? What is it if not the My Lords abusing their power of authority and clout as SC Justices and making very irresponsible statements? Did the My Lords lose track of the fact that NS was only seeking to have her FIRs clubbed and was not on trial?

The Backup Power

How irresponsible of My Lords on the bench with the “backup power” of being SC Justices but not knowing their facts. When the question was raised about the Delhi police not doing their job responsibly, it has been reported that NS was served a notice of appearance on June 18[5]. Furthermore, NS joined the investigation and her statement was recorded the same day. Yet, the Justices with the SC power backing them had the audacity to point fingers at the Delhi police. What could be more irresponsible and arrogant conduct?

The Loose Tongue

I dare state the obvious that NS made a “factual” not “loose” statement in the televised debate. In the hindsight, it may not have been the best strategy for which she later apologized, lost her party membership, and received hundreds of threats from those belonging to extremism and Jihad. Can the powerful Justices imagine why she had to go underground for her, and her family’s protection and how her family might be suffering? To the best of my knowledge, she has not spoken a word for weeks let alone characterized with a loose tongue.

If it was anyone with the loose tongue, it was the Justices with clout and backup power of SC. The bench hardly asked for any evidence and denied her request yet they questioned, refuted, retorted, made assumptions, and went on mischaracterizing NS. My Lords, NS was only seeking the clubbing of her FIRs and not the “loose commentary” which the bench in its wisdom did not even include in the final order while denying her request.

This is what I call UNJUST justice meted out to NS with the far-reaching potential for denied justice for the wrong reasons. The team of two Justices went too far in abusing their judicial power which must be questioned under the constitutional guarantee of justice for all and tried in the public opinion court if not in the court of law. I hope the Justices will heed the advice of India’s President that “indiscreet remarks, even if made with good intention, give space for dubious interpretations to run down the judiciary”[6].

According to a Twitter thread, the SC asking NS to apologize is one thing but slamming her and accusing her with a “loose tongue” for setting the country on fire deserves our condemnation to the highest degree. The worst is the SC saying that NS’s outburst is responsible for the unfortunate incident and gruesome beheading at Udaipur, where a tailor was murdered in daylight[7]. Is the SC hinting that the two accused murderers in the Udaipur case with a videotape of self-confession are not guilty of their crime? It should be noted that the two Islamic extremists not only committed the premeditated murder in Udaipur, but they also threatened the PM of India by name.

Are the Justices adding fuel to the fire by creating the spectacle in the courtroom and using their very indiscrete commentary? What happened in the court is nothing but an attempt to hijack the judiciary and use a politically-driven narrative. What a shame for India’s judiciary where the clout and power of being My Lords made them imagine themselves above the law and Constitution. I can only hope that the Letter petition filed before the Chief Justice brings semblance and the commentary by Justices Surya Kant and Jamshed B Pardiwala be withdrawn without prejudice for any future reference[8].

Let me add that it will be a travesty for India’s apex court if NS, who suffered undue reprimand by the SC bench, is not accorded the merging of all FIRs in one court to guarantee her personal safety. I also hope that never again do India’s SC Justices use such a loose tongue, behave irresponsibly, exhibit arrogance, and show respect for the right to justice for all. Their personal and political biases have no place in the courtroom.

1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.


[1] ‘Arrogant, obstinate & loose tongue’; SC slams Nupur Sharma’s plea to club FIRs [details]Jul 1, 2022, International Business Times

[2] Supreme Court open its doors at 2.30 AM; No relief for #YakubMemonJul 30, 2015, Bar and Bench

[3] Nirbhaya: Supreme Court dismisses final plea by convicts; execution to take place at 5:30 AMMar 20, 2020, Bar and Bench

[4] The matter of seeking the arrest of Nupur Sharma reached the Supreme Court, filed an application and requested for actionJun 14, 2022, Hindustan News Hub

[5] Delhi Police reacts after Supreme Court questions why no arrest of Nupur Sharma in Prophet controversyJul 2, 2022, Janta Ka Reporter

[6] President Kovind calls upon judges to ‘exercise utmost discretion’ in courtroom remarksNov 28, 2021, Indian Express

[7] Gruesome beheading: India at a crossroadsJun 30, 2022,

[8] Will Nupur Sharma get relief? Letter petition filed in Supreme CourtJul 1, 2022, Edules

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.

Vijendra Agarwal, born in village Kota (Saharanpur, U.P), left India in 1973 after Ph.D. (Physics) from IIT Roorkee. He is currently a member of project GNARUS, a syndicated service and writers collective. He and his wife co-founded a US-based NGO, Vidya Gyan, to serve rural India toward better education and health of children, especially empowerment of girls. Vidya Gyan is a calling to give back to rural communities and keeping connected to his roots which gave him so much more. His passion for writing includes the interface of policy, politics, and people, and social/cultural activities promoting community engagement.

Formerly, a researcher in Italy, Japan, and France, he has widely travelled and came to the US in 1978. He was a faculty and academic administrator in several different universities in PA, TX, NJ, MN, WI, and NY, and an Executive Fellow in the White House S&T Policy during the Clinton administration.
Vijendra Agarwal


  1. There was another Chief Justice of a High Court who, not too long ago, accused the Election Commission and its officials of ‘murder’ in Court without any evidence and without any reason. When the Election Commission appealed to the SC for expunging the comments, the Hon’ble justices of the particular SC bench refused to interfere. It seems that a judge can say things in Court which would, for any other person, invite legal action and jail.

    • Harkamal Ji, unfortunately, some judges/justices treat themselves above the constitution and law. I understand there is no code of conduct for the judges because they did not want it. All that must change if we want our country to be governed by rule of law.

  2. You may be better placed to decide how and whom to approach for addressing another issue long suppressed which is very relevant to the Udaipur (& now also possibly Amravati) outrages. A religion whose holy book asks its adherents to ‘slay the idolators’ comes with both peaceful elements as also with marauding invaders who pillage, rob and destroy a land populated by the said idolators for millenia prior to their arrival. Over centuries, what eminent historian William Durant described the bloodiest story in history’ and possibly the biggest holocaust ever took place. Even after division of the country to provide a nation for Muslims, how is it that the idolators are still persecuted. Invaders destroy all temples and idols but even mention of undisputed recorded facts about a Prophet are enough for them to make them kill supporters of who said the truth. Even as you brought out in your article, the Judges (My Lords is a wholly inappropriate and undeserved title for whom) virtually label a ‘truthsayer’ a threat ! Crazy.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here