The Supreme Court, while debating the merits of a law similar to the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the United States, digressed and turned to Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan's comment in 2016 on the Bulandshahr gang rape case. Khan's comment came back to haunt him on Monday when Attorney General KK Venugopal called his statements "atrocious".
By calling the brutal crime a "political conspiracy", Khan chose to brand the victims — a woman and her 14-year-old daughter — as "liars," Venugopal said before a Bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and AM Khanwilkar.
Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan's comment in 2016 on the Bulandshahr gang rape case
Venugopal called for strict action, against Khan, and added that he has not mended his ways even after rendering an apology before the top court in 2016. Khan was also recently booked for sedition for allegedly making statements against the Army, Venugopal pointed out.
"Now, I am not speaking for the government, but he cannot be allowed by this court to be seen as obstructing justice and having got away with just an apology. He cannot be exonerated like that," the top law officer submitted.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, who is an amicus curiae in this case, concurred with the AG and said he would file an application to initiate criminal action against the SP leader soon.
For the Civil Rights Act, the Attorney General must frame a law where a private citizen can come forward to agitate the violation of his fundamental rights in court by another private person or corporates, eminent jurist Fali Narmian said.
This discussion was stemmed after Khan made his statement in the backdrop of the Bulandshahr gang rape.
Before digressing on the topic of Khan, the court was originally meant to frame questions of law on issues whether a high functionary of a State, like a government minister, can make comments that potentially create distrust in the minds of victims of a crime about the fairness of the ongoing investigation.
At the previous hearing, Nariman had submitted five questions of law for the then attorney general to respond to. On Monday, adding to the list of questions given by Nariman, Salve observed whether "a principle should be set so that people who hold constitutional offices should not shoot from the hip like this."
When the debate dominated around Khan, Nariman said, "I am not interested in Khan, I am speaking about a wider picture here."
Nariman said the fundamental rights enshrined in Part Three of the Constitution provide remedy against violations by the State but not against fellow citizens or private bodies.
The government must frame a separate Civil Rights Act that can be an extension of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) to include action against individuals.
QUESTIONS OF LAW
- The court was meant to frame questions of law on issues whether a high functionary of a State can make comments that potentially create distrust in the minds of victims of a crime about the fairness of the ongoing investigation.
