Kaushal Kishor v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner—father of a minor rape victim—invoked Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that the investigation being carried out by the Uttar Pradesh Police in FIR No. 0838 dated 30-7-2016 (Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr) for offences under Sections 395, 397, 376-D and 342 of the Indian Penal Code read with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, was unlikely to be fair. The perceived bias stemmed from multiple public addresses by Respondent 2, who allegedly described the incident as “a political conspiracy only and nothing else.” The petitioner therefore sought transfer of the investigation to another State.

During the preliminary hearing, the Supreme Court requested Shri Fali S. Nariman, Senior Advocate, to assist the Court as amicus curiae. Issue notice was ordered to the respondents, and the Court stayed further investigation into the FIR as an interim measure. The matter was directed to be listed on 27-9-2016.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a person holding public office or authority may publicly characterise allegations of rape, gang-rape or murder as mere “political conspiracy” when that individual is not personally accused in the case.
2. Whether the State, responsible for maintaining law and order, may permit such public comments when they risk eroding the victim’s confidence in a fair investigation.
3. Whether the impugned statements fall within the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression or transgress permissible limits.
4. Whether such statements defeat the constitutional ideals of compassion and sensitivity toward victims of heinous offences.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• The petitioner contended that Respondent 2’s public remarks, dismissing the crime as a political conspiracy, compromise the integrity and perceived neutrality of the ongoing investigation.
• Citing specific witness statements and paragraph 3.23 of the writ petition, counsel argued that continued investigation within Uttar Pradesh would undermine public confidence and the victim’s faith in the justice system.
• Accordingly, a transfer of the investigation to another State was sought to ensure fairness.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court treated the matter as one raising significant constitutional questions about the permissible scope of public commentary by persons in authority during a criminal investigation. Observing that the issues have broader implications for victim confidence and the administration of justice, the Bench appointed Shri Fali S. Nariman to assist as amicus curiae. Recognising potential prejudice from ongoing investigative actions, the Court exercised its discretionary power to grant an interim stay of further investigation. Issue notice was ordered to secure responses from the State and other respondents within three weeks.

Holding and Implications

INTERIM ORDER: The Supreme Court issued notice to the respondents, appointed an amicus curiae, and stayed further investigation into FIR No. 0838 dated 30-7-2016 until the next listing on 27-9-2016.

Implications: The immediate consequence is a temporary halt to investigative proceedings while the Court examines the constitutional questions framed. No final precedent has been set; however, the order signals judicial scrutiny of public commentary by office-holders in ongoing criminal cases and may influence future standards on such conduct.