Nariman For Civil Rights Act-Like Law To Protect Citizens Against Fundamental Rights Violations By Individuals, Corporates

Senior advocate and eminent jurist Fali S Nariman today told the Supreme Court that a law  like a Civil Rights Act needed to be framed to enable citizens to protect their fundamental rights against violation by other private individuals or companies.

Nariman was assisting a bench headed by justice Dipak Misra as an amicus curiae in the matter in which the apex court has taken serious note of Uttar Pradesh Minister and Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan’s terming the sensational Bulandshahr gang rape incident a “political conspiracy”.

Khan had tendered an unconditional apology on December 15. But the court has asked Nariman as amicus curiae to assist the court on four significant larger questions to be decided.

Commencing arguments to answer the questions, Nariman  said the fundamental rights enshrined in Part Three of the Constitution provide remedy against violations by the State but not against fellow citizens or private bodies.

Nariman said the court should stretch the extent of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) to include action against individuals or direct the government to frame a separate Civil Rights Act.

The four questions the court is deciding are;

When a victim files an F.I.R. alleging rape, gang rape or murder or such other heinous offences against another person or group of persons, whether any individual holding a public office or a person in authority or in-charge of governance, should be allowed to comment on the crime stating that “it is an outcome of political controversy”, more so, when as an individual, he has nothing to do with the offences in question?

Should the “State”, the protector of citizens and responsible for law and order situation, allow these comments as they have the effect potentiality to create a distrust in the mind of the victim as regards the fair investigation and, in a way, the entire system?

Whether the statements do come within the ambit and sweep of freedom of speech and expression or exceed the boundary that is not permissible?

Whether such comments (which are not meant for self protection) defeat the concept of constitutional compassion and also conception of constitutional sensitivity?

The minor victim and her  mother had moved the Supreme Court in August seeking action and FIR against the minister.

Justice Misra had earlier slammed Khan by asking how could an individual holding a public office or a person in authority or in-charge of governance, be allowed to comment on the crime and state that “it is an outcome of political controversy”, more so, when he has nothing to do with the offences in question.

SET A PRINCIPLE : SALVE 

During today’s hearing  Attorney-General K K Venugopal  said Khan had not mended his ways even after rendering an apology to the Supreme Court and was recently booked for sedition for allegedly making scandalous statements against the Army.

Venugopal pointed out that the alleged seditious comments against the Army was made shortly after he apologised to this court.

At this juncture, senior advocate Harish Salve, another amicus curiae, submitted that the court “should set the principle that people who hold constitutional offices should not shoot from the hip like this.”ENDS