An advocate by the name of Jaya Sukin has fired off a letter to Attorney General KK Venugopal, seeking permission to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against retired Judge SN Dhingra, and advocates Aman Lekhi and Rama Kumar.
The trio had made scathing remarks on the disturbing statements issued by Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala over the recent beheading of Hindu tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur.
BREAKING: Advocate Jaya Sukin writes to AG KK Venugopal for consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Justice (retd) SN Dhingra, Senior Advocates Aman Lekhi and Rama Kumar for the statements on #SupremeCourt’s oral observations in #NupurSharma’s case.
— LawBeat (@LawBeatInd) July 5, 2022
As per Law Beat, advocate Jaya Sukin claimed that the remarks made by Justice Dhingra and advocates Lekhi and Kumar caused ‘irreparable injuries’ to the Indian Judiciary and the nation.
The letter also alleged that the use of unparliamentary and derogatory language against the Judiciary fell within the scope of the Contempt of Courts
According to the letter, the statements, has caused irreparable injuries to Indian Judiciary and the Nation by un parliament statements and derogatory remarks and hence falls within the scope of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. #SupremeCourt #NupurSharma
— LawBeat (@LawBeatInd) July 5, 2022
The development comes days after Trinamool Congress spokesperson Saket Gokhale had sought consent from AG to falsely implicate Opindia and its Editor-in-Chief Nupur Sharma for questioning the contentious remarks of Justices Kant and Pardiwala.
OpIndia, in an article, had stated that the statement of the judges has emboldened the Islamists.
If they want to deliver speech, they should become politicians: Retired judge SN Dhingra
In a recent interaction with a news channel, retired justice SN Dhingra said that if a judge wants to deliver a speech, then, he should become a politician. SN Dhingra also asked why the Supreme Court did not include its oral comments in the written order.
“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 The Supreme Court has only written in the order that the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.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?” he had asked.
SN Dhingra further said, “This gives a terrible message in the country that the Supreme Court itself is high on power and nobody can stop the Supreme Court from saying anything at its own will.”
It is notable here that the Supreme Court judges Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala had held Nupur Sharma ‘single-handedly responsible’ for the Udaipur murder that was committed by Islamists for a mere social media post. They had stated that Sharma should have apologised to the ‘entire nation’ on TV and had addd that the chaos and violence that have been unleashed across the country by Islamic organisations are because of Sharma.
The statements, however, did not make it to the official order that refused to grant Nupur Sharma permission to club all FIRs against her to Delhi.
