Supreme Court Judge Who Heard Nupur Sharma Plea Slams “Personal Attacks”


A decide who was a part of the Supreme Court bench that slammed the BJP’s Nupur Sharma for her feedback on Prophet Muhammed, at present made robust remarks about private assault on judges for his or her judgments. “Personal attacks on judges for their judgements lead to a dangerous scenario,” mentioned Justice JB Pardiwala — who was a part of the bench that mentioned the previous BJP spokesperson must apologise to the entire nation — at a operate.

Both Justice Pardiwala and Justice Surya Kant had been focused on social media by customers after their oral feedback in opposition to Nupur Sharma in the course of the listening to of her plea.

Nupur Sharma had gone to the Supreme Court demanding that every one the First Information Reports registered in opposition to her throughout the nation ought to be clubbed collectively and transferred to Delhi.

In her petition, she additionally mentioned she and her household have been going through safety threats and so they want safety.

In their observations, the judges had additionally questioned why Nupur Sharma had not been arrested and held her liable for “igniting emotions across the country”.

In his handle at a operate at present, Justice Pardiwala mentioned, “Personal attacks on judges for their judgments lead to a dangerous scenario where the judges have to think about what media thinks instead of what the law really thinks. This harms the rule of law. Social and digital media is primarily resorted to expressing personalized opinions more against the judges, rather than a constructive critical appraisal of their judgments. This is what is harming the judicial institution and lowering its dignity. The remedy of judgments does not lie with social media but with higher courts in the hierarchy. Judges never speak through their tongue, only through their judgments. In India, which cannot be defined as a completely mature or defined democracy, social media is employed frequently to politicize purely legal and constitutional issues.”

He added that digital and social media must be regulated all through the nation to protect the rule of legislation below the structure.

“In the modern day context, trials by digital media are an undue interference in process of justice dispensation and cross that Lakshman Rekha many a times.”

Justice Pardiwala cited the Ayodhya case for instance. He mentioned, “It was a land and title dispute but by the time the final verdict came to be delivered, the issue attained political overtones. It was conveniently forgotten that someday or the other some judge had to decide the contentious civil dispute which was indisputably The oldest litigation pending in the court of the country running into thousands of pages. This is where the heart of any judicial proceeding before the constitutional court may disappear and the judges deciding the dispute may get a bit shaken, which is antithetic to the rule of law. This is not healthy for the rule of law.”



Source hyperlink

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.