Meet Justice Surya Kant: The Judge Who Gave Nupur Sharma Judgement

Justice Surya Kant, who was the former Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court rebuked suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma today.

Written by: India.com News Desk Edited by: Shrimansi Kaushik

Updated: July 1, 2022, 2:16 PM IST

Share

Share Article

• Facebook
• WhatsApp
• X
• Email
• Telegram
• Linkedin

https://www.india.com/news/india/who-is-justice-surya-kant-the-judge-who-tore-into-nupur-sharma-over-prophet-remark-5486122/ Copy

Justice Surya Kant, who cancelled Nupur Sharma's plea and rebuked her for her remarks on prophet.

New Delhi: Supreme Court on Friday rebuked suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma for her controversial remarks on the Prophet and asked her to apologise the whole country. The apex court said that her comments have “put the nation on fire” and have threatened the national security in India. The apex court said, “What if she is the spokesperson of a party. She thinks she has back up of power and can make any statement without respect to the law of the land.” The sitting judge of the Supreme Court who brought this judgement is Justice Surya Kant.

Justice Surya Kant who rebuked Nupur Sharma today. Picture Source: SouravDOfficial/twitter

Who Is Justice Surya Kant?

• Justice Surya Kant assumed office in the Supreme Court of India in 2019.
• He has earlier served as the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court from October 5th 2018  to May 23rd 2019.
• He has also served as a Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court from January 9th 2004  to October 4th 2018.
• The 60-year-old justice pursued his L.L.B from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak.
• He began practising in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1985 and served as the Advocate General of Haryana. He was then designated as a Senior Advocate in 2001.
• Some of his notable judgments include the unanimous judgment in Jitendra Singh v Ministry of Environment and Ors. case where he noted that ponds were public utilities meant for common use.
• He held that schemes that extinguish local water bodies, even with alternatives, violate Article 21 of the Constitution.
• In another judgement, in the case Central Bureau of Investigation v Sakru Mahagu Binjewar and Ors. that involved a conviction for Murder, Criminal Conspiracy, Rioting and intimidation and insult under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
• Kant authored the opinion of the three-judge Bench on the proportionality of a 25-year prison sentence.
• He held that Section 57 of the IPC does not in any way limit the punishment of imprisonment for life to a term of 20 years. Therefore, he upheld the commutation of the death penalty to 25-years as ‘actual imprisonment.’

Supreme Court today refused to entertain Nupur Sharma’s plea to club the multiple FIRs registered over her remarks on Prophet Muhammed in a TV channel debate. Her petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue alternate remedies.