I am not a fundamentalist nor a patriot. I am just a scoundrel.

I’ve read the post twice and finding it hard to figure what you are intending to say. From even what is said, there are glaring flaws which I would like you to expand on, if you don’t mind.
Is your writing about media spinning a mountain out of molehill? If it is then that’s a totally different dynamic and this would just be an instance?

Is your writing about Sania as a person?
Oh she should not have any more controversies because she had her share? ( entire second paragraph)

Or sports needs focus . don’t bother her?

I am sure you would agree this is not reasonable. I can give you instances from all over the world, where sportsmen were penalised etc during the sports season for reasons off ground.

Para 4 is mistake:
You say a lawyer has filed the case. You have uploaded the snap. Ergo it is no rumour. The lawyer is acting within the constitution, he has not broken the law. It would be the same three for anyone, three year sentence is not advert in which she features.
Further : I don’t have to tell you why the allegation isn’t baseless. Yes evidence may be debatable but that is a matter of opinion not the verdict.

X is a great nationalist because she ironed the flag the other day doesn’t mean X can use it as her bathroom curtain tomorrow. Also it doesn’t mean no one should utter a word if she used it. The extremity of the example is to show the flaw in reasoning.

Also, X is paying monumental taxes to the government doesn’t mean he can go and shoot blackbucks.

I cant comment on mirza considering her future. It is hers after all. I don’t know about other controversies, but in this case I think minding the feet would have sufficed.

I think the whole charade might be unnecessary but there are so many other things I think unnecessary and am sure others would think of me as well. If someone doesn’t think of it as unnecessary and proceeds about questioning in right direction she has to go and defend. No exceptions.

Thanks.