The recent proceedings in the Supreme Court have shed light on the varying approaches taken by the judiciary when dealing with alleged religious offenses, particularly remarks made by public figures. In two distinct cases involving Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya and political spokesperson Nupur Sharma, the court’s responses reflect the complexity of interpreting religious sentiments and the delicate balance between freedom of expression and maintaining communal harmony.
Unbelievable. When Nupur had simply quoted what is written in Islamic scriptures, the very same Supreme court told her: "You have ignited the whole country. You possess a loose tongue. Power has gone to your head. You should apologise to the nation."
Who was being touchy then? pic.twitter.com/UdZmZbqncb
— Anand Ranganathan (@ARanganathan72) January 25, 2024
Case 1: Swami Prasad Maurya’s Plea
Swami Prasad Maurya found himself in legal turmoil over alleged remarks made about Tulsidas’ Ramcharitmanas. The Supreme Court, during the hearing, raised questions about the state government’s sensitivity, emphasizing the matter’s interpretational nature. Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta highlighted that the issue revolved around interpretation, questioning whether it amounted to an offense.
The government’s argument, attempting to dissuade the court from staying criminal proceedings, faced resistance. Justice Mehta asserted that burning copies of the text could not be attributed to Maurya, emphasizing the importance of recognizing diverse perspectives. Eventually, the court issued notice for a four-week returnable period, staying the proceedings. However, the Allahabad High Court had earlier found prima facie grounds against Maurya, expressing concerns about incitement to rebellion and potential damage to communal harmony.
Case 2: Nupur Sharma’s “Controversial” Statements
In the case involving Nupur Sharma, a political spokesperson, the Supreme Court took a markedly different stance. Refusing to entertain her plea seeking the transfer of FIRs against her to Delhi, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala criticized Sharma for allegedly fanning flames across the country. The court accused her of arrogance and emphasized that being a party spokesperson did not grant a licence for inflammatory remarks.
The court, in strong terms, held Sharma “single-handedly responsible” for the situation and urged her to apologize to the entire nation. The rejection of her plea led to a withdrawal, underlining the seriousness of the court’s dissatisfaction with her conduct.
The contrasting approaches in these cases highlight the judiciary’s struggle to strike a balance between freedom of expression and the prevention of communal disharmony. In Maurya’s case, the court leaned towards protecting the right to interpret religious texts freely, expressing skepticism about the state’s sensitivity. On the other hand, Sharma’s case saw a more assertive stance, with the court holding her accountable for her statements and rejecting her plea unequivocally.
The judgments indicate the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining communal harmony and preventing the incitement of violence based on religious sentiments. However, the challenge lies in consistently applying these principles across cases, ensuring that the interpretation of religious remarks remains nuanced and unbiased. These cases serve as a reminder of the delicate nature of handling religious sentiments and the nuanced approach required to uphold constitutional values while safeguarding the social fabric.
Symbianian is a freelance writer.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.