In a First Post news piece, lawyer J Sai Deepak (IIT KGP) comes down on the Supreme Court for doing what it did in Nupur Sharma's FIR clubbing case. Advocate Ashish Goel (NUJS) also minces no words. When the lions of the bar are silent, it is heartening to see some lawyers speaking up on something that will be remembered as one of the darkest episodes of the Supreme Court in rights jurisprudence. Here is the article https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/why-honourable-courts-should-exercise-utmost-discretion-while-making-oral-observations-10865521.html

[Some of the comments made by SC:
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-nupur-sharma-remarks-prophet-mohammed-provocation-islam-202722
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/nupur-sharma-obstinate-arrogant-character-supreme-court-3117508 ]

These lawyers coming out of elite law schools have no idea what is happening on the ground. It is easy to share comments in newspapers and magazines because you know the editors and they publish your comments. Their views are not important. Both Sai Deepak and Ashish Goel passed from law schools in West Bengal but they do not talk about the Mamata government and Mahua's comments on goddess Kali. All politics nothing else...ignore them! There can be no justification for what Nupur Sharma said and let the law follow its own course. Who are we?

As a Kaalibhakt coming from a long line of Shakta family, I have not taken any offence at Mitra's comment. If you did, then that should be your problem. In fact, that's the precise point of all these cases. This hurting of religious sentiments malarkey is absolute BS. Regardless of whether said or objected by Hindus, Muslims, or anyone else. If your sentiments are hurt that easily by comments or acts by mere humans towards gods and goddesses, then your devotion towards or understanding of Divinity is weak and diluted.

Wasn't that a casual scolding judges often do to the parties as well as to the arguing counsel? Practical exposure to courts definitely will make one aware that it is the accepted mode of practice in courts that judges make statements often harsh towards the parties, that doesn't mean it is 'judgement'. It's really disheartening to see LI forums, where people actually have exposure to the working of law acting as the same bunch of twitter bum-bums who doesn't have an iota of knowledge of how the law functions.

Since when does a “casual scolding” of SC involve attributing murder (committed in another state by someone else) to a comment made on TV in response to an equally jarring comment, on a completely different plea? Don’t pretend you don’t see what has been said and what it conveyed. Also, that’s a lot of arrogance for having ticked some questions correctly on the precipice of adulthood; tone it down a bit. As much as you’d like to believe it, we’re not all incapacitated.

Yahi Liberalism ek din desh ko le doobega..... This surge in the chain of communal clashes owe to the fact that it was Nupur Sharma who lit it in the first place. Everything that's happening now is just a domino effect of her statement in a pluralistic state with conflicting religious groups. And specially, where you are a national spokesperson of the political party in power with a complete majority, your statements are not merely casual statements to be left ignored by the people. If the statement by the SC on Nupur is considered impactful, imagine the impact of the statement of a spokesperson of the largest party in the world with the largest democracy targeting the people belonging to a religion with its largest number of followers in India. Especially in a country with a population full of religious scoundrels and chai ki tapri intellectuals. People listen to politicians more than they do to the executive and the judiciary. While the SC statement wasn't really a proportional one, but any step by the courts that strike down on communal politics, which India has tangled itself into must be appreciated in this time of national crisis.
AND YES SHE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS! This is what politics of communalism give you. Not only her, but her entire political party too is equally responsible for creating such an environment. Actions have reaction. By judging the reactions (which are by no means justifiable) in isolation we will do injustice by sparing the demagogue.

As a lawyer you need to understand that court, must less the Supreme Court, is not a political party. Parties and politicians make statements. You as a citizen can also make a statement. That's free speech. That's democracy. Court need to have some restraint. But these things are not taught in old law schools and you clearly don't belong to a National Law School. I'm sorry to be rude but it's good to be both sorry and rude sometimes to make an important point.