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

Counsel (continuing with Sahara) - There can only be a case to case examination.

J. Mishra - You are not answering our questions. You need to do more research, both of you. We’ll hear this when Mr. Salve comes back. 19th or 20th we will come. This is a very serious issue, don’t be casual.

Counsel (continuing with Sahara) - There can only be a case to case examination.

J. Mishra - You are not answering our questions. You need to do more research, both of you. We’ll hear this when Mr. Salve comes back. 19th or 20th we will come. This is a very serious issue, don’t be casual.

J. Mishra - We will only hear you after you’ve done full research.

ASG Madhavi Divan - There are different facets of speech.

J. Mishra - What is the minister’s policy for making such a statement ? We are examining responsibilities of a minister. Whether he is liable and to what extent ?

ASG - He can be taken to task under various laws.

J. Mishra - Why not a writ ?

ASG - Following the Sahara judgement, various people tried to take advantage of it.

J. Bhat - Don’t make a comment that will impede the investigation. This will be grossly undermining public order.

J. Mishra - In sub judice matters, if such comments are made - freedom of speech and expression to what extent ?

Counsel - In Sahara judgement (2010), self regulation is the best regulation.

J. Bhat - It also jeopardises the fairness of an investigation. This is also an intrinsic part of Art. 21.

J. Mishra - Research this further and find more cases. This is an academic exercise.

J. Mishra - Why can’t we be a respectable democracy ? Why can’t we respect each other’s sides. When you are holding an office, shouldn’t you respect others ? Let us come to the fundamental duties. Can we make such reckless statements and destroy the very harmony of this country ?

J. Shah - Both the Articles need to be read harmoniously, so that one person’s rights are not infringed.

Anuj Garg (bartender) and Charu Khanna (makeup artist) cases in the context of 15(2). These are against the State.

J. Mishra - We are not talking of State restrictions. Once a certain right is recognised and it is being infringed, can you say that the right doesn’t exist if there’s no enacted law ? Why does it require a law ? Art. 19(1) and Art. 21 need to co-exist. If you kill one, the other one won’t exist.