Justice Rohinton Nariman asks petitioner's lawyer: “Do you seriously want to argue this?" Dismisses the case.
In the recent past, the country has seen a growing sentiment of hatred against minority communities among a few. From lynching over the choice of meat to calling out Muslim actors and politicians, spewing hatred has suddenly been gaining ground.
And when it comes to hauling up a Muslim who is explicit about his/her views, which may at times not be in favour of the party at power in the Centre, the usual jeer is to ask the person to “go back to Pakistan”.
However, as the day unfolded, it was revealed that a certain citizen of one of the greatest secular democracies of the world, wasn’t satisfied with just passing such insensitive remarks. He decided to actually send Muslims back to Pakistan. How? He filed a petition in the Supreme Court in this regard.
The case came up for hearing in the apex court on Friday in front of a Bench of Justice Rohinton Nariman and Vineet Saran.
A report published by Bar and Bench stated Justice Nariman was dismayed and appalled by the prayer.
He asked the petitioner’s lawyer to read it out loud. When the counsel did so, the angry judge lambasted the petitioner and asked: “Do you seriously want to argue this? We will hear you, but we will pass strictures against you.”
The question was met with a “no” and the petition was dismissed. That’s that. But one cannot dismiss the horrors of the seeds of communal animosities being sowed in the hearts of a multitude of fundamentalists in the country.However, Justice Nariman’s way of dealing with the petitioner was met with much praise on Twitter and some even questioned how and why such a trifle petition was even taken up by the court in the first place. We say, who knows, maybe the agenda was to bring the man back to his senses!
Petition in Supreme Court to send Indian Muslims to Pakistan: Justice Rohinton Nariman blasts the petitioner.
"Do you seriously want to argue this matter", Nariman J. to lawyer.
"No", says lawyer.
Dismissed. @barandbench— Murali Krishnan (@legaljournalist) March 15, 2019
Should have imposed fine for wasting court's time.
— Sam wise (& romantic) (@SubtweeterIndia) March 15, 2019
Effect of 2014 to 2019 political regime.
— v venkataramu (@vvenkataramu) March 15, 2019
How could it even come for hearing, when Nirbhaya, Adivasi rights and other crucial matters await dates from their Lordships.
— Elephant Lord (@MonkofMaude) March 15, 2019
"Do you seriously want to argue this matter", Nariman J. to lawyer. That's a classic example of a Rhetorical Question. #awesome Should be taught in schools.
— S for Sidharth (@motion_allowed) March 15, 2019
The judge has every right to pull up a lawyer for wasting the courts time with preposterous petitions and if you ask me, the lawyer got off real easy this time in this particular court).Plus, the lawyer said no to arguing the matter so why did he even come before court with it. — Unnati Misra (@UnnatiMisra) March 15, 2019
How did it get admitted in the first place? SC has refused to hear or penalized petitioners in other cases.This definitely warranted punitive action against petitioner & lawyer. — Shantanu Katre (@Shantanu_katre) March 15, 2019
Isn't there any filtration process to weed out silly PILs before it reaches the court?
— Madhavankutty Pillai (@cpmadhavan) March 15, 2019
Although missed it but can very well imagine Justice's expressions while asking the lawyer — Vanya Gupta (@vanyaguptaadv) March 15, 2019
Someone start a petition to send right wing Indian Hindus to China.— globetrotter (@supmeg) March 15, 2019