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

We look at the pith and substance for 19(1)(a) and 21. Law is required.

J. Mishra - Due process of law doesn’t mean that there has to be a law.

AG - Take 21 alone. Kharak Singh says that you can’t curtail freedom of movement. There has to be a statutory law.

J. Mishra - It’s not dependant on statutory law alone. It’s an independent right. Due process of law is an additional facet. A reasonable process. It doesn’t mean that there has to be an enacted law.

AG - Take Art. 21. Procedure established by law has not been interpreted in the US line. But, it’s something which is just and reasonable.

Public interest as a concept has only been brought in by 19(5).

J. Bhat - Public interest is only in 19(6) and 19(5). The rest is public order.

J. Bhat - Public interest is only in 19(6) and 19(5). The rest is public order.

AG - Fundamental Rights can only be restricted by reasonable restrictions. Public order is not the same as public safety.

Only grounds under Art 19(2) can be placed on Art 19(1)(a).

J. Bhat - All these judgements have reiterated the same thing.

Now reading Rangarajan v. Jagjivan Ram.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/341773/

AG - It is not a part of the functions of the Minister to make derogatory statements. All investigations are a part of the supervision of the criminal court.

(Now talking about Kharak Singh case of 1964)

AG - Whether he is functioning in the realm of public law or private. If he speaks on policy issues, there is a collective responsibility and then the State is involved. He would be covered by the civil law or the criminal. If such a statement is made, the remedy will not be against the State, but against the Minister himself.