The nation’s top court, the supreme court, has issued a strong statement in response to the heinous murder of tailor Kanhaiyalal in Udaipur by fundamentalists and suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma. Judge Surya Kant of the Supreme Court claimed that Kanhaiyalal’s murder was totally the fault of Nupur Sharma. Furthermore, Nupur Sharma has been labelled as a threat to the entire nation by the Supreme Court. She is being asked to apologise to the entire nation at the same time.
The important thing to remember in this situation is that Nupur Sharma’s statement undoubtedly wounded the Muslim community’s feelings, and the Supreme Court has acknowledged that Nupur made this speech in an attempt to provoke people. But how can someone’s life be used as a prop? Kanhaiyalal did not even mention anyone’s religion in that instance. How can the Supreme Court, which is referred to as the “house of justice,” support such a horrific murder? The Supreme Court’s words in this regard seem to be encouraging fundamentalists. Will it be OK to hack someone tomorrow by accusing them of blasphemy? Or will the court contest whether or not the deceased had actually denounced a certain religion? Can the accused be freed by holding the deceased accountable for his death if it is established that the deceased committed blasphemy?
Will Maulana Ilyas Sarfuddin’s murder be justifiable because he called the Shivling a “private part” during a TV debate with the Hindu God? In this approach, there won’t even be a concept of a law in the nation. A few days ago, would she have been held accountable for Nupur Sharma’s death if the mob that was chanting “Sir Tan Se Judaa” on the streets had discovered Nupur Sharma somewhere and beheaded her? It is also important to point out that the court has not condemned such fanaticism despite the savagery with which Kanhaiyalal was killed. Many of these issues, which are crucial to the future of the nation, have been raised by the Supreme Court’s remark. Since anyone can be killed in such circumstances by being accused of blasphemy, and even after the victim has passed away, the courts will continue to debate what the actual cause of the murder was.