‘Why Deliver Political Speech’ Retired Justice SN Dhingra Slams SC For Its Adverse Comments On Nupur Sharma

Following the case of Kanhaiya Lal’s beheading in Udaipur, the Supreme Court held former Bhartiya Janata Party spokesperson Nupur Sharma entirely and single-handedly responsible for it and passed adverse comments on the same.

Retired judge of the Delhi High Court – SN Dhingra has slammed the Supreme Court for its comments on Nupur Sharma wherein a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Surya Khad held the former Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson responsible for Kanhaiya Lal’s beheading in Udaipur. In an interaction with TV news channel News24, retired justice SN Dhingra said that if a judge wants to deliver a speech, he should become a politician. SN Dhingra also asked why the Supreme Court did not include its oral comments in the written order.

Retired High Court Judge SN Dhingra said, “Supreme Court has apparently said that Nupur Sharma was high on the power she had as a member of the ruling party and she carelessly went on to make those comments. As per my conscience, the same things also apply to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court itself cannot hold anyone guilty without any investigation. The case was put in front of the Supreme Court only for transferring the FIRs and not for proving any charges against her. I don’t understand how the Supreme Court can make such oral observations? If the Supreme Court had guts, it would have given those comments as a part of the written order. The Supreme Court has only written in the order that the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Why? Why did the court not include its comments in the written order so that the Supreme Court could be held answerable to the questions like – how is it righteous of you to consider her guilty without any trial of the case, to become a prosecutor yourself, to charge the accused on your own, and declare her guilty only to deliver your judgment orally?”

He further went on to state that:

“Why they are giving their observation orally? Why don’t they give it in writing so that the Delhi police can be made to stand before the Supreme Court and be punished? Why oral observations in the first place? Why make these oral comments that are meaningless, not recorded anywhere and no one can act upon Supreme Court for making such comments?”

SN Dhingra highlighted the moral consequence of the proceedings. Since it carried a bad message in the country with respect to, the Supreme court misusing the high power inherited by it and using the same as per will with no one to stop. Further, the court had questioned why the petitioner didn’t knock the doors of the Magistrate. To which, the former justice responded by stating numerous instances when the SC bypassed the judicial Hierarchy to listen to petitions of seemingly rich people even at middle of the night. 

He questioned “How can the Supreme Court make such comments without even observing and knowing any facts?” Which implied that it was the job of the lower courts to investigate the matter and to check whether the comment owed a concrete base or are they inspired otherwise. If comments made by Nupur Sharma prove to be wrong then the Trial court is well within its power to sentence her. Nevertheless, in the present case, SC laid guidelines which holds any person making a comment on public Television Debate, guilty and therefore it is required to record an apology for the same. He questioned “Is it less of a power that anyone can be jailed for contempt? Do the debate anchors or do you have such power? Does any politician have such power? Do you think policemen have such power? If you think that police have such power, don’t forget that the court can give a notice to the police, question them and even punish them.”

Moreover, Retired Justice SN Dhingra held the oral comments passed by the Supreme Court are political in nature and therefore it has fulfilled the function of a politician and not that of judiciary. 

SN Dhingra further said, “This gives a very bad message in the country that the Supreme Court itself is high on the power it has and nobody can stop the Supreme Court from saying anything at its own will. The Supreme Court has said one more thing. The court asked why didn’t the petitioner go to the magistrate. There are countless incidents in which the Supreme Court has bypassed magistrates and high courts to listen to the petitions of rich people even at the stroke of midnight. What will you call to the Supreme Court in such cases? How can the Supreme Court make such comments without even observing and knowing any facts?”

SN Dhingra added, “If Nupur Sharma has said anything objectionable, then it is the job of the lower trial courts to check whether her comments have any base or they are inspired otherwise. If her comments prove to be wrong then the trial court will sentence her. But in this case, the Supreme Court, with its comments, has laid down a guideline for the trial court that if anyone says something in a TV debate, then he is guilty and he should apologize to the country and also all the anchors, and debate participants, etc. should apologize to the country and such debates should not be there anymore. Supreme Court is not supposed to talk like it is a part of some TV debate. It is not supposed to give some political speech. These comments by the Supreme Court are nothing but a political speech and I am not at all agree with that. All the things said by the Supreme Court are wrong.”

The retired high court judge also said, “Why they are giving their observation orally? Why don’t they give it in writing so that the Delhi police can be made to stand before the Supreme Court and be punished? Why oral observations in the first place? Why make these oral comments that are meaningless, not recorded anywhere and no one can act upon Supreme Court for making such comments? These comments show that the Supreme Court is high on power than Nupur Sharma could be. The Supreme Court is enjoying the Supreme power it has. The Supreme Court can say anything and can still remain unanswerable. There is no one to mock or rectify it.”

Explaining the powers the Supreme Court enjoys, SN Dhingra said, “Is it less of a power that anyone can be jailed for contempt? Do the debate anchors or do you have such power? Does any politician have such power? Do you think policemen have such power? If you think that police have such power, don’t forget that the court can give a notice to the police, question them and even punish them. So the court should listen to her, punish her if she is guilty, and send her to jail. But why the court is delivering a public speech? Who has asked the judges to give the speech? They should become politicians if at all they want to deliver such speeches. Why are you still a Supreme Court judge? The Supreme Court hears bail petitions even at midnight. If the Supreme Court hears the petitions of the riches at midnight, these judges should also open the courts for the poor at midnight.”