LIVE UPDATES From SC [Can Persons Holding Public Office Comment On Crimes ?]

Counsel - 2nd point is about legitimacy. The separation of powers. The question of constitutional legitimacy comes in. A decision of a constitutional court cannot infringe FRs.

J. Mishra - Give us cases.

Counsel - Sakal Papers case (1961 3 SCR 8) and Sahara judgement.

In Sakal, State may place restrictions on rights for the interest of the general public. Right to freedom of speech can be restricted for the interest of the state.

J. Mishra - If the directives aren’t doing anything, will advice work ?

J. Banerjee - Will the Court just fold its hands and sit back if the legislature is inactive, and watch the infringement of FRs ?

Matter has commenced.

Counsel of the Petitioner (Kaleeswaram Raj) is arguing.

The Court doesn’t have the mechanism which the legislature otherwise has. When it’s a process of adjudication, Court can only say if A or B is right. When it’s a matter of legislation, they will be a position to examine all the aspects, the conditions. The legislature has that mechanism.

Matter will continue post lunch. Everyone will be accommodated.

J. Mishra - Our case is different here. How do we address it ? There has to be a certain responsibility when a person is speaking.

J. Mishra - In absence of enforcement machinery, what is to be done ?

J. Bhat - There are some critical issues. Such as HIV and blood transfusion. There was no law. Courts had to step in.

AG - People come to the SC only when all other routes are exhausted. Suggestions are welcome, directions are not. For instance in Sabarimala.

AG - Let me use an example. Everyone is entitled to housing. Where will the money come from ?

J. Shah - You are stretching it too much. Who says that we can’t issue guidelines for at least some people ?

AG - Let me use an example. Everyone is entitled to housing. Where will the money come from ?

J. Shah - You are stretching it too much. Who says that we can’t issue guidelines for at least some people ?

J. Shah - It cannot be disputed that it is the duty of the SC to protect the FR. To protect these, can’t the SC or any court issue certain guidelines ? Why can’t these be issued to protect the law of the land ?

What is the lacuna, where is the vacuum ? Law cannot be static. Everything is changing. It involves something new everyday; different technology is developed. From this point of view, we are examining this case. We cannot remain in the era of 30-40 years back.