Law – The Wire

Foreigner Tribunal Cannot Review its Own Orders: Supreme Court

The decision serves as a significant safeguard against whimsical proceedings that could subject individuals to prolonged legal uncertainty over their citizenship status.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruled that the law does not permit a foreigner tribunal established for determining illegal immigrants to act as an appellate authority over its own judgments and it is “powerless” to review its own orders.

A bench if Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the verdict while setting aside an Assam foreigner tribunal order that had reversed its own finding in a case concerning a woman declared to be an Indian citizen, reported Hindustan Times.

The Supreme Court’s ruling will have larger implications for cases overseen by foreigner tribunals and will ensure that once an individual has been declared an Indian citizen through due process, the state or the Centre cannot pursue repetitive litigation against them in the absence of fresh and valid grounds for review through an appropriate appellate mechanism.

The decision serves as a significant safeguard against whimsical proceedings that could subject individuals to prolonged legal uncertainty over their citizenship status.

The apex court’s ruling stemmed from the case of Reija Khatun who was declared an Indian citizen by the tribunal in 2018 but decided to continue the proceedings against her after entertaining the state’s second reference against Khatun.

“In the second order dated December 24, 2019, the tribunal goes to the extent of holding that it is not divested with the power to scrutiniae the documents and even findings in the earlier proceedings. The order indicates that the Tribunal wants to sit over in an appeal against its own concluded judgment and order. Such power can never be exercised by the Tribunal,” said the Supreme Court in its ruling.

Supreme Court Stays Lokpal Order Saying High Court Judges Are Under its Ambit

The Lokpal, headed by former Supreme Court Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, in two separate orders dated January 2025 had held that it can investigate corruption allegations against judges of the high courts.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court in a suo motu proceeding has stayed the Lokpal order which held that it can entertain complaints against high court judges under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

In an order dated January 8, a full bench of the Lokpal headed by Justice Kanwilkar while dismissing a complaint against former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud held that judges of the Supreme Court cannot be brought under the jurisdiction of the Lokpal as the apex court was not constituted under an Act of parliament but under Article 134 of the constitution.

As reported by The Wire, the Lokpal in the same order also held that judges of other courts, including the high courts, are under the ambit of the anti-corruption watchdog.

In a separate order dated January 27, the Lokpal while dealing with a complaint against a high court judge, without entering into the merits of the complaint, ruled:

“We make it amply clear that by this order we have decided a singular issue finally – as to whether the Judges of the High Court established by an Act of Parliament come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act of 2013, in the affirmative. No more and no less. In that, we have not looked into or examined the merits of the allegations at all.”

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant and A.S. Oka took cognisance of the Lokpal’s orders on Wednesday (January 19) and heard the matter on Thursday (February 20).

This report, first published at 11 pm on February 19, was updated with the news of the order a day later, at 11 am on February 20.

Freebie Charge Is an Assault on Social Welfare and Rights of Citizens

The word ‘freebies’ reflects the class privilege of those using the term, including members of the judiciary, industrialists, business executives, journalists or people occupying high positions who deride social welfare schemes even as they themselves receive all kinds of benefits.

During a hearing on civil writ petitions pertaining to provision of adequate shelter facilities to homeless persons in urban areas, Supreme Court Justice B.R. Gavai chose to criticise the practice of freebies for harming the national work ethic.

He reportedly said: “Unfortunately, because of these freebies, which come on the anvil of the elections…some Ladki Bahin and some other scheme, people are not willing to work…Because of the freebies in Maharashtra, which were just announced prior to the elections, the agriculturalists are not getting labourers. When everybody is getting free rations at home, why would they want to work?”

Justice Gavai described homeless people as “parasites” and their demands for decent shelters, rations, and health as freebies on the assumption that they are unwilling to work. He cites no evidence for this claim. Nor does he seek to find whether the jobs being offered provide decent wages and even then people prefer not to work. His criticism also does not cite any evidence to show that cash transfers prevent people from working since they can just sit at home, do nothing and collect their freebie. These comments are based on anecdotal and personal experience. Contrary to this, economists have found no systematic evidence that cash transfer programmes reduce the propensity to work or the overall number of hours worked for by either men or women.

To think that a monthly cash transfer of Rs. 2000-3000 is enough to make the poor lazy defies logic and reason. He also singled out the policy of free rations as a reason for labourers not going to work. But the free ration given to an individual is just 5 kgs for the entire month and that too primarily cereals. This is less than the average individual cereal consumption in India estimated to be 9 kg a month. If labourers are indeed not going to work, this is not because of free rations, they are just not getting decent wages for agricultural work. The latest Economic Survey points to stagnating or decreased rural wages.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) has found that there is a stark lack of decent employment opportunities in India. Cash transfers have been offered because severe unemployment afflicts the capitalist world, including India. Employment generation is a big concern of the Indian economy. It is not that people don’t want to work, if that was the case, lakhs of people wouldn’t be queuing up to apply for the small number of public sector jobs advertised now and then by the government. For example, for a total of about 1.4 lakh vacancies for various categories of staff in Indian Railways, more than 2.40 crore candidates had applied in 2020. Railways screened 22.5 lakh applicants to recruit 18,799 assistant loco pilots in 2024. Air India recruitment drive for airport loaders led to a stampede-like situation as a massive crowd of job seekers thronged the Mumbai airport in July 2024.

Similarly, huge numbers of workers are registered under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGS). As of October 2023, approximately 13.2 crore active workers were registered under this scheme, while the total number of registered workers is much higher. This shows that people are not reluctant about seeking productive labour or agricultural jobs when they become available. Yet, the budget for MGNREGS has not been increased, leading to pending wages and suppression of work. This scheme was allocated Rs 86,000 crore in the 2025-26 Union Budget. This is the same amount as the 2024-25 budget allocation.

Many of the so-called freebies are a constitutional requirement for social and economic justice in a country that is ranked among the most unequal countries in the world. The World Inequality Database shows that economic inequality in India was higher than the colonial period, and termed it as a Billionaire Raj. However, the ruling party has repeatedly dismissed the concerns of growing economic disparity by giving a corrosively communal colour to wealth redistribution as witnessed in during the toxic election campaign for the Lok Sabha elections last year. India has not even been able to ensure that all its people receive basic food and nutrition, healthcare, housing, educational access, etc. In most other countries, universal access to reasonable quality goods and services that constitute basic needs is seen as the responsibility of the state, these are not viewed as freebies. We need to ensure basic needs for all citizens by shifting to a system of constitutionally guaranteed economic rights which can be financed by wealth and inheritance taxes.

More importantly, if the political process compels parties to respond to basic needs, this must be welcomed, especially in the case of women related schemes. Political parties may manipulate a right as a benefit for electoral considerations. But to accuse women of not being willing to work because of modest cash transfers or welfare schemes is doing injustice to women’s work. It is also factually incorrect as a large majority of women are already working, doing unpaid work in the domestic sphere and also often unpaid work in family enterprises, including in agricultural operations. According to a State Bank of India (SBI) survey of 2023-24, if the extent of women’s unpaid work is monetised, it would amount to a mammoth 22 lakh crore rupees a year, which would be around seven per cent of the GDP that year. Thus it is not that women are not working, but that they are working without any remuneration.

The word freebies reflects the class privilege of those using the term, including members of the judiciary, industrialists, business executives, journalists or people occupying high positions who deride social welfare schemes as freebies even as they themselves receive all kinds of benefits.

The government recently announced a slew of extra retirement benefits for Chief Justices of India and Supreme Court judges (not to be confused with freebies). Similarly, tax cuts given to the corporate sector are not to be confused with freebies. Even as many welfare schemes are seen as wasteful, there is predictable silence over the billions of rupees worth of bad loans, owed to the public sector banks, being written off the banks’ balance sheets.

There can’t be a better example of freebies than the write-offs of non-performing assets (NPAs) of large corporate loans in the last few years paid for by Indian taxpayers.

The main reason for cash transfer is simply this: the Indian economy under the current regime is not generating enough jobs. It is attempting to acquire political power without producing large employment opportunities, thus having to offer cash transfers to the people. But these transfers are inadequate compensation for the scarcity of employment and minimum wages. If transfers are to be stopped then the government must provide decent jobs to people in lieu of transfers. The failure to do so has made a vast majority of Indians pessimistic about joblessness in the country, according to the Mood of the Nation Survey of February 2025 conducted by India Today and C-Voter. Most of those surveyed felt that the unemployment situation in the country was very serious or somewhat serious. In this dismal situation, the aforesaid remarks by the highest court on social welfare schemes, constitute a political and ideological assault on the rights of the working people and the welfare state envisioned in the Constitution.

Zoya Hasan is Professor Emerita, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

MUDA Case: Lokayukta Police Finds No Evidence Against Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah

The Lokayukta police submitted their final report to the Karnataka high court, clearing Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvathi, his brother-in-law Mallikarjuna Swamy, and landowner Devaraju of all allegations.

New Delhi: Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah and his wife Parvathi have been given a clean chit by the Lokayukta police in the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site allotment case by the Lokayukta police, citing lack of evidence.

The Lokayukta police submitted their final report to the Karnataka high court on Wednesday (February 19), clearing Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvathi, his brother-in-law Mallikarjuna Swamy, and landowner Devaraju of all allegations.

“Since the above allegations against accused-1 to accused-4 in the case have not been proven due to lack of evidence, the final report is being submitted to the high court,” the Lokayukta police said in a letter to activist Snehamayi Krishna who is a complainant in the MUDA case.

However, the Lokayukta police have stated that further investigation will be conducted into allegations of MUDA providing compensatory plots in the ratio of 50:50 from 2016 to 2024. An additional final report will be submitted to the high court in this regard.

The development comes days after the Karnataka high court rejected a plea to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had been demanding a CBI probe into the matter.

The site allotment case revolves around 14 prime plots worth Rs 56 crore allotted to Siddaramaiah’s wife, Parvathi, as compensation in 2021. These plots were given in exchange for 3.16 acres of land in Mysuru’s Kesaru village, which was gifted to Parvathi by her brother in 2010 and allegedly “wrongfully” acquired by MUDA in 2014.

The allotment was made under a contentious 50:50 scheme, which was implemented when the BJP was in power in the state. This scheme allowed landowners to receive 50% of the developed plots, while MUDA retained the remaining 50%. However, activists and the BJP have alleged that Parvathi received plots in areas with higher property values, making the exchange unfair and increasing the worth of her land compared to the original plot.

A special court directed the Lokayukta police to investigate the matter on September 25, 2024, following a request by an RTI activist who sought a probe by the Lokayukta, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), or any other agency.

SC Issues Contempt Notice to UP Govt Over Madni Masjid Demolition

The bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and AG Masih also restrained the Kushinagar district administration from carrying out any further demolition till the next hearing.

The Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to the district magistrate Kushinagar in Uttar Pradesh for allegedly demolishing part of a mosque in violation of the apex court’s November 2024 judgment that barred demolitions across the country without prior notice.

The bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih also restrained the Kushinagar district administration from carrying out any further demolition till the next hearing date on March 18.

The Supreme Court Is Policing Morality, Justice Remains Elusive

India is already witnessing an erosion of free expression. Judicial moral policing and the potential facilitation of a wider censorship regime will only accelerate this decline.

It is rather rich of the Supreme Court to preach morality when, not too long ago, not a single Supreme Court judge publicly objected to their Chief Justice presiding over cases despite serious allegations of sexual harassment.

On February 17, the Supreme Court heard YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia’s plea for interim protection in multiple obscenity cases over his remarks in a comedy show, India’s Got Latent. A two-judge bench, led by Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justice N Kotiswar Singh, stayed Allahbadia’s arrest on the condition that he cooperates with the police and appears before the investigating officers when summoned. The court also barred further FIRs based on the same show but did not decide on clubbing them.

A gag order

However, more troubling is the sweeping condition barring Allahbadia and his associates from airing “any show” on YouTube or other audio-visual platforms “until further orders.” This restriction, imposed without a shred of justification, curtails their freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and their fundamental right to practise any profession or occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

While the state may impose reasonable restrictions on these fundamental rights, like in the public interest, it has a duty to justify their necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness. One would expect the highest court to explain why it deemed it necessary to bar someone from their profession and gag their future speech. Yet, the Supreme Court imposed this condition on Allahbadia and his associates arbitrarily – paternalistic, sweeping, and entirely unaccountable – emblematic of its mai-baap approach, wherein it sees itself as the ultimate arbiter of all things, unburdened by the need to justify its own excesses.

This sweeping condition is particularly striking given that Justice Kant, sitting with Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna, had ruled against such restrictions in fact-checker Mohammed Zubair’s bail case.

In 2022, the Supreme Court held that prohibiting Zubair from tweeting, which the state of Uttar Pradesh pressed for, would amount to an unconstitutional gag order:

“A blanket order directing the petitioner to not express his opinion – an opinion he is rightfully entitled to hold as an active, participating citizen – would be disproportionate to the purpose of imposing conditions on bail. The imposition of such a condition would amount to a gag order against the petitioner. Gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech… Passing an order restricting him from posting on social media would constitute an unjustified violation of the freedom of speech and expression, and the freedom to practise his profession,” the three-judge bench had held.

‘Vibe jurisprudence’

Now, leading a smaller two-judge bench, Justice Kant has taken a completely contradictory position. If a judge radically departs from a legal reasoning they previously endorsed, judicial discipline demands an explanation in the order. The lack of one here reinforces concerns about what I call “vibe jurisprudence,” where judicial outcomes are contingent on individual judges rather than consistent legal principles. The only rationale behind this restriction is the biases of the bench, reflected in the remarks made before the order was dictated.

Clearly infuriated, Justice Kant described Allahbadia as having “dirt in his mind” and accused him and others on the panel of “perversion,” even questioning why courts should favour him.

“The words you have chosen – parents will feel ashamed. Daughters and sisters will feel ashamed. Your younger brothers will feel ashamed. The entire society feels ashamed,” he remarked. The Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed lower courts to avoid prejudicing investigations and trials with extraneous remarks at the interim stage. Yet here, Courtroom Number 3 of the Supreme Court has itself violated that principle.

Whimsical punishment

When Allahbadia’s counsel, Abhinav Chandrachud, cited a 2024 Supreme Court ruling distinguishing between profanity and obscenity – arguing that the obscenity charges were unfounded – the apex court quickly shifted the discussion to “societal values” and proceeded to establish its moral superiority over the petitioner.

Justice Kant queried about the “parameters” of “self-evolved societal values” within which a “responsible citizen” should behave. The decision to bar Allahbadia and his associates from airing any show was grounded in this entirely subjective standard of morality. This is judicial punishment rooted not in law but in personal sentiment. The court ignored the fact that what one judge finds outrageous may not be equally offensive to another. Crass as Allahbadia’s joke may be, the court had no business exceeding constitutional boundaries to deliver whimsical punishment before an investigation was even completed. Even if we dismiss this as an isolated incident, cases such as this grab many eyeballs and the Court’s conduct, if irrational, has a chilling effect. More importantly, orders such as this also set a very dangerous precedent – emboldening moral policing in an increasingly autocratic nation where freedoms are eroding.

One cannot completely dismiss concerns that there may be more at play. The Supreme Court’s moralising and overreach aside, more concerning is Justice Surya Kant’s explicit desire to “do something” about OTT regulation. The bench has summoned the Attorney-General for India and the Solicitor General of India for the next hearing to discuss this issue. This is deeply troubling.

A digital dice is cast

The Supreme Court lacks the capacity, technical expertise, and institutional bandwidth to craft regulations for digital content. The participatory democracy that the Supreme Court itself has extolled requires consultation with all stakeholders, particularly on sensitive issues with wide-ranging implications for free speech. The judiciary is hardly the appropriate forum for such a discussion on a law. Over five crore cases are pending before Indian courts. The country cannot afford its future Chief Justice embarking on a whimsical crusade to regulate OTT platforms while urgent judicial concerns remain unaddressed. The court is surely aware of its limitations.

Then what is this about?

The court’s intervention could revive the shelved Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024. This proposed law, criticised for its sweeping scope, sought to regulate not just OTT platforms and digital news but also individual content creators and social media users. Among its many problematic provisions was mandatory prior registration with the government—a measure widely condemned for enabling state overreach. If the Court’s intervention nudges the government towards reviving the Bill, it will have effectively provided legal cover for broader censorship.

India is already witnessing an erosion of free expression. Judicial moral policing and the potential facilitation of a wider censorship regime will only accelerate this decline. It is not the Supreme Court’s job to police morality or craft content regulations. The court must back off and resist the temptation to play guardian of societal values. Instead, it should focus on improving justice delivery and hearing challenges to laws that are inconsistent with constitutional principles – such as the Delhi Services Act, 2023.

Saurav Das is an investigative journalist writing on law, the judiciary, and policy.

Gujarat HC Dismisses Journalist Mahesh Langa’s Plea to Quash FIR

The court observed that a prima facie a case was being made out against Langa, and dismissed the plea.

New Delhi: The Gujarat high court on February 17 rejected jailed journalist Mahesh Langa’s plea seeking quashing of the FIR filed against him for allegedly confidential government documents.

“…in the instant case, from the material collected by the investigating officer during the course of investigation, prima facie involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime is made out. Moreover, the investigation is at a nascent stage and it would not be proper on the part of this Court to exercise its inherent powers in favour of the petitioner at this stage. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Notice discharged,” said a bench of Justice Divyesh A. Joshi, reported Bar and Bench.

According to the prosecution’s claims in the case, confidential documents of the Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) were seized from Langa, a journalist with The Hindu, leading to the lodging of the present first information report (FIR).

Langa has been booked for criminal breach of trust, theft by the clerk, and other offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who represented Langa, said that the journalist was not initially named in the FIR and was arrested based on assumptions. He also highlighted that till date, no official of GMB has been arrested and only Langa has been held, which Sibal said showed an oblique motive in arresting the journalist.

However, the court observed that a prima facie a case was being made out against Langa, and dismissed the plea.

Langa was already in judicial custody in another case when this FIR was registered on allegations that he possessed official documents.

Earlier, Journalists’ bodies had condemned the action against Langa by Gujarat Police.

SC Issues Contempt Notice to UP Govt Over Madni Masjid Demolition

The Kushinagar district administration had demolished a part of the Madni Masjid in Hata on February 9.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (February 17) issued a contempt notice to the district magistrate Kushinagar in Uttar Pradesh for allegedly demolishing part of a mosque in violation of the apex court’s November 2024 judgment that barred demolitions across the country without prior notice.

The bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and AG Masih also restrained the Kushinagar district administration from carrying out any further demolition till the next hearing date on March 18, reported Hindustan Times.

“It is submitted that in these premises, the demolition which was made is in egregious contempt of the directions issued by this court. Issue notice as to why proceedings for contempt should not be initiated against the respondent (DM),” said the court in its order.

The Kushinagar district administration had demolished a part of the Madni Masjid in Hata on February 9, alleging illegal occupation and construction.

The chief administrator of Madni Masjid, Haji Hamid Khan, characterised the administration’s actions as one-sided, asserting that the mosque has been destroyed based on lies. He said that the mosque is situated on registered land and was constructed in accordance with the municipality’s approved plans and that a response was provided to the municipality’s notice.

People associated with the mosque have alleged that they did not receive any directives from the municipality regarding the removal of the ‘unauthorised’ construction.

Over Three Years On, Modi Govt Does Not Declare its Position on Places of Worship Act

The top court, while expressing displeasure at the number of pleas filed in the case, adjourned the matter till April.

New Delhi: The Union government once again failed to file a counter-affidavit in response to a plea challenging the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

The matter has been pending in the Supreme Court since 2022 with the first notice seeking the Union government’s response dating back to May 2021.

Between October 2022-December 2024, the top court has passed eight orders in which the Union government was either granted more time to file a response or the court was told that it was working on a “comprehensive” one.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar adjourned the matter till April during the hearing on Monday (February 17).

The court also expressed displeasure at the number of fresh pleas being filed in the case. While dismissing all petitions in which a notice had not been issued, the court said that petitioners could file applications but only those raising new legal grounds would be entertained.

“People keep on filing fresh petitions alleging that they have raised new grounds…It will become impossible for us to deal with the petitions besides whatever has already been filed,” CJI Khanna said.

“We are constrained to pass this order after taking note of the number of fresh petitions filed. The pending writ petitions, which have no notices, stand dismissed with liberty to file an application raising additional grounds, if any. The new IA will only be allowed if there is any new point or new legal issue that has not been raised in the pending petitions,” the bench said.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, referring to the notices issued by the court in the initial petitions in 2021, said, “Please direct the Centre to file its counter-affidavit at least in these petitions.”

The Union government’s silence on the matter comes amid an increasing number of petitions being filed to ‘reclaim’ Hindu temples at religious sites belonging to Muslims.

In December 2024, the top court barred civil courts from registering any fresh cases on such matters or passing orders in pending ones.

The Places of Worship Act preserves the character of religious places as they existed on August 15, 1947. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the conversion of places of worship and Section 4 imposes an obligation to maintain the character of religious places as they were on August 15, 1947.

‘Dirty’, ‘Obscene’, ‘Insulting Parents’: SC Gives Ranveer Allahbadia Relief, But Only After Severe Remarks

‘”If this is not obscenity, then what is obscenity?’

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today (February 18) granted YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia protection from arrest in cases registered against him in three cities over comments made by him on a comedy show – but not before making severe remarks on the nature of his jokes.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh passed the interim order while issuing notice to the respondents on the writ petition filed by Allahbadia against the multiple first information reports against him, LiveLaw reported.

The apex court also barred more FIRs from being registered on the same show, India’s Got Latent.

The interim protection will apply only if Allahbadia joins the investigation. The bench also allowed to him approach police for protection against threats.

Allahbadia, who has a podcast show under his moniker ‘Beer Biceps’, has been on the receiving end of threats, outrage and FIRs since he made a controversial comment on the YouTube show.

He asked a contestant, “Would you rather watch your parents have sex every day or join them to finish it once and for all?”. Other comments made by Allahbadia and others on the show including Samay Raina, Ashish Chanchlani, Jaspreet Singh and Apoorva Mukhija, have also been shared in the form of clips – drawing further criticism.

The backlash has led to many noting that this is hardly the first time that vulgarity has made it to Indian television. Many observed that Allahbadia was drawing criticism from the same people who had praised his interviews with government ministers and leaders of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

The Supreme Court appeared not to be a fan of him today.

“Are you defending the kind of language?” Justice Kant asked advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, who was representing Allahbadia.

Chandrachud, who is the son of the former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, said that while he was “disgusted” by the comments, they could not be considered a criminal offence.

“If this is not obscenity, then what is obscenity? Is the judgment [in the Apoorva Arora case that Chandrachud cited] a licence to say whatever you want?”, Justice Kant asked.

Justice Kant made a number of comments on the joke.

“There is something very dirty in his mind, which has been vomited by him in the programme…He is insulting parents also. Why should the courts favour him?” Justice Kant asked.

The judge also appeared to rebuke Chandrachud who said that BJP leader Nupur Sharma had been given relief for a “much worse” statement – on the Prophet Muhammad.

“If you can try to attain cheap publicity by saying these kind of things, there might be others also who might want to get cheap publicity by making threats,” Justice Kant said.

“The words which you have used, parents will feel shamed. Sisters and daughters will feel ashamed. Entire society will feel shamed. It shows a perverted mind,” Justice Kant also said, according to LiveLaw.

Justice Kant also expressed disapproval of Chandrachud going to the police station. When Chandrachud said even Allahbadia’s mother was receiving death threats, Kant was enraged.

“What embarrassment he has caused to parents! We know from where he has copied the question. There are certain societies where they warn those who are not supposed to watch the program…they maintain precautions…” he said.