(2018) 11 SCC 562 (1)
Order dated 29-3-2017
(Before Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.)
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 113 of 2016
1. Mr F.S. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel (who was appointed as Amicus Curiae) being assisted by Mr S.C. Sharma submitted that he requires some more time to think further and formulate the propositions with regard to the balancing of two preferential rights, namely, the right under Article 19(1)(a) and the right under Article 21.
2. Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General submitted that there cannot be a criminal prosecution on the ground of decency or morality under Article 19(2). Needless to say, the question of criminal prosecution does not arise in this case.
3. The core issue, as is projected before us, is whether the right conferred under Article 19(1)(a) is to be controlled singularly by the language employed under Article 19(2) or also the other fundamental right, that is, right under Article 21 would have any impact on it.
4. Mr Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel, who was present in Court, expressed his intention to assist the Court. It is submitted by Mr Salve that Article 19(2) may be the only controlling provision but the right of freedom of speech and expression as enshrined and spelt out under Article 19(1)(a), has its own inherent contours and it is not boundless.
5. Let the matter be listed on 20-4-2017 for final hearing.
(2018) 11 SCC 562 (2)
Order dated 20-4-2017
(Before Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.)
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 113 of 2016
6. Heard Mr Fali S. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr Subhash Sharma, learned counsel, who have been appointed as Amicus Curiae and Mr Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel, who has also been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the matter.
7. Ms Madhavi Divan, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India, has submitted that Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India will be arguing the matter if some time is granted.
8. Mr Nariman has filed a written note of submissions by referring to certain judgments. We do not intend to record the submissions advanced today for a different reason. Mr Salve has also pointed out the inherent limitation in various articles.
9. Regard being had to the importance of the matter, we think it is seemly to refer the matter to the Constitution Bench, but prior to that, we would like to request the Amicus Curiae to formulate the propositions of law for the purpose of reference. The said propositions may be filed within a week hence.
10. Let the matter be listed on 2-5-2017.
Court Masters
Comments