The remark came three days after the gruesome murder of a tailor in Udaipur for "insulting Islam". The holiday bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala refused to consider Nupur's request to pummel all FIRs in the case and allow him to join the investigations being carried out by the Delhi Police. Nupur later had to withdraw her petition when the SC asked her to seek redress in the appropriate higher courts.
The Bench said Nupur should have apologized to the country immediately after his comment during a television debate. Her statement which she had given on National Television set the country on fire. He should have apologized immediately... These comments are very disturbing and smell of arrogance. What is your business to make such comments? These people are not religious. They have no respect for other religions.
These comments were made for cheap publicity or political agenda or other nefarious activities,” the Bank said. In response to Nupur's statement through his lawyer, chief advocate Maninder Singh, that he had already apologized, the court said "the apology came too late and conditionally, saying whether religious sentiments are hurt, etc. .".
"The way it has ignited the emotions, this lady is the only one responsible for what is happening in the country, we saw the debate," the Supreme Court said. The court's refusal to consider her petition means that she would have to join investigations in Mumbai, Jammu and Kashmir, Hyderabad and Nagpur, where she faced FIR.
If there is a misuse of the debate, the first thing he should have done was file an FIR against the anchor.” The Chamber also asked “what was the business of a television channel to discuss a matter sub judice except to promote an agenda”. If there is a misuse of the debate, the first thing he should have done was file an FIR against the anchor.” The Chamber also asked “what was the business of a television channel to discuss a matter sub judice except to promote an agenda”.
“The case of a journalist who expresses his right on a particular issue is on a different pedestal than that of a political party spokesperson who condemn others with irresponsible statements without thinking about the consequences,” the Supreme Court and Justice Kant said. noted: “Yes. … in a democracy, grass has a right to grow and donkeys have a right to eat.”