Mantri's right to oppose govt lands before 5-judge bench

NEW DELHI: A year after then UP minister Azam Khan stirred a controversy by terming the Bulandshahr gang rape case a political conspiracy to malign the SP government, the Supreme Court referred on Thursday the important question -whether a minister can exercise right to free speech to express views contrary to that of the government -to a five-judge constitution bench.

A bench of Justices Dipak Misra, A M Khanwilkar and Mohan M Shantanagoudar agreed with amicus curiae Fali S Nariman and Harish Salve that a thorough scrutiny and balancing of trilogy of fundamental rights -equality, free speech and right to dignity under right to life -was required to be undertaken by a constitution bench as right to free speech has been sweepingly exercised by citizens with the advent of social media platforms. “The sensitivity and sensibilities attached to the rights and their sanctity, what could be the course of action in case of conflict between the three most important fundamental rights and related issues need to be examined,“ the bench said.

Nariman, an ardent proponent of sanctity of fundamental rights and who openly protested against Emergency in 1975 by resigning as additional solicitor general, said India did not have a civil rights charter that could ensure a citizen's right of redressal against another private citizen for violation of fundamental rights. “The Supreme Court can expand the fundamental rights to protect one citizen's rights from being violated by another private individual,“ he said.

Salve said Article 75(3) of the Constitution expressly provided that each and every minister in the council of ministers is bound by the collective responsibility clause and any view expressed by them publicly had to be in synch with the stated public policy of the government, that is, gender justice under right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 and dignity under right to life guaranteed under Article 21. “Every public statement of a minister has to be construed as the view of the government under collective responsibility provision of Constitution,“ he said.