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

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.

Whether it can be violated by a person holding a public office ? Can there be guidelines to fill the vacuum till the Parliament chooses to enact a law ?

AG - Your Lordships cannot independently evolve principles which can be independently defined into law.

J. Mishra - In Rafique Masi (a service law matter), the question of Art. 142 came up. We are not making the law. Law exists in the shape of the Constitution. Once the court has recognised those rights, it’s binding.

Whether it can be violated by a person holding a public office ? Can there be guidelines to fill the vacuum till the Parliament chooses to enact a law ?

AG - When Parliament makes a law, it’s a very elaborate procedure.

J. Mishra - Can’t guidelines be issued by the court ?

AG - There is a reason there’s separation of powers.

J. Mishra - We are giving you that. In case right exists, we are only saying that this is a reason. A human is given certain rights. We are not creating a right. We are only giving it a regulatory shape. Our job is only to enforce these rights.

J. Mishra - In Vishaka, no government enacted the law. In that case, can the court not regulate that right ? Not in every case.

J. Bhat - In matters of education or in something as Vishaka, the very fact that you made it into a law to further that 21 right, just means that there is some space for the court to say something.

Let it be worked out by the Parliament.

These all have been declared as FRs. How can you possibly enforce this ? Parliament has to pass a law to enforce this. You can do what was done in Vishaka. Make a list of guidelines. It’s a stop gap thing.

These are all good laws, but need statutory provisions by the Parliament. These rights cannot be enforced by the Court until it is shown that there is some violation by the State.

These all have been declared as FRs. How can you possibly enforce this ? Parliament has to pass a law to enforce this. You can do what was done in Vishaka. Make a list of guidelines. It’s a stop gap thing.

AG lists the enumerated rights under Art. 21.

These all have been declared as FRs. How can you possibly enforce this ? Parliament has to pass a law to enforce this. You can do what was done in Vishaka. Make a list of guidelines. It’s a stop gap thing.

J. Bhat - Puttaswamy has declared the existence of privacy, an intrinsic part of 21. The question is that how do you regulate that ? What are the tests to be considered when it comes to its violation ? What is the way out for the State if they infringe the victim’s right ? Puttuswamy, specifically Chelameshwar’s decision.

AG - FR to life cannot be just an animal existence (dissenting judgement in Munn v. Illinois).

J. Mishra - Question is Minister is making a statement. You’re saying that there has be an enacted law. What about right of privacy ?

AG - That has to be claimed.