The Center agreed with the high court that it was unacceptable for civil servants to shoot from the hip but called on the court to let parliament look into the matter. Attorney General R Venkataramani and general counsel Tushar Mehta told the bench that the supreme court had made two rulings on the claims filed by Tehseen Poonawala and Amish Devgan on the matter and in accordance with the rulings. There is no need to hear the case. They said that the questions posed in the case were abstract and that it would be difficult to come to terms with them.
The attorney general said there are provisions in the IPC to deal with such cases and that imposing additional restrictions lies in the legislative and Parliamentary areas where it can debate and make laws. He said civil servants work according to the code of conduct and they will face consequences if they violate it.
“Of course, a person holding a public office must be restrained. It is an unwritten law and part of the Constitution’s culture and they should not brag about anything that discredits and affects a part of the people. people,” said Judge BV Nagarathna, a member of the Constitutional bench.
“The reason why there is no legislation this whole time is because there have always been restrictions placed on themselves by the holders of positions of responsibility. Now one gets the impression that those restrictions are slowly fading. loosened up and as a result people spoke in a way that offended others. No one seemed to be checking them and anyone could get away with saying something pejorative. That was the purpose of the case. ,” Judge Nagarathna commented.
Senior Attorney Aparajita Singh, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae, also filed that there is no need for a Constitutional committee to adjudicate and that it should be decided by an ordinary committee on database of each case.
Senior lawyer Kaleewaram Raj insists the court should not introduce additional restrictions but must distinguish hate speech from freedom of speech. He said that some checks must be taken to curb hate speech by ministers and elected deputies which has so far remained unchecked.
The court, after hearing all parties, reserved its order. Five questions were asked to be adjudicated by the Constitutional bench and one of them said, “Whether a statement of the Minister, is related to any work of the State or to the defense of Government, can it be indirectly attributed to Government itself, especially from the point of view of the principle of Collective Responsibility?”
Another question is, “Does a statement by the Minister, inconsistent with the rights of citizens under Part Three of the Constitution, constitute a violation of those constitutional rights and are subject to litigation?” ‘Violating the Constitution’ or not?”
Proceedings in the case began when the high court became aware of a controversial statement by then UP Minister Azam Khan in 2016 about Bulandshahr rape case, consider it part of a political conspiracy. Although he was acquitted after making an unconditional apology in court, the court agreed to look at the larger issue of ministers and elected representatives making unnecessary remarks. on sub-judicial matters.
