Can persons holding public office make comments on heinous crimes? Supreme Court to consider

The Supreme Court of India today appointed Senior Advocate and eminent jurist Fali S Nariman as Amicus Curiae in a petition filed by the relative of the Bulandshahr rape accused. The petitioner has sought action against Uttar Pradesh Minister Azam Khan for his remarks on the incident..A Bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and C Nagappan issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government, and Azam Khan..On July 29, a family from Noida was stopped on the highway near Bulandshahr by an armed gang. The gang allegedly dragged a woman and her 14-year-old daughter to the fields and raped them. The incident sparked off a major debate regarding law and order in the State of Uttar Pradesh..Meanwhile, Minister Azam Khan had alleged that the incident was a “political conspiracy” triggering outrage. The petitioner, whose wife and daughter were allegedly raped, had then moved the Supreme Court seeking a probe by an independent agency into the incident, and action against Azam Khan for his remarks..Advocate Kisley Pandey appeared for the petitioner today..The Court after hearing the petitioner proceeded to appoint Fali Nariman as amicus and framed the following four questions to be considered for hearing:.“(i)When a victim files an F.I.R. alleging rape, gang rape or murder or such other heinous offences against another person or group of persons, whether any individual holding a public office or a person in authority or in-charge of governance, should be allowed to comment on the crime stating that “it is an outcome of political controversy”, more so, when as an individual, he has nothing to do with the offences in question?.(b) Should the “State”, the protector of citizens and responsible for law and order situation, allow these comments as they have the effect potentiality to create a distrust in the mind of the victim as regards the fair investigation and, in a way, the entire system?.(c) Whether the statements do come within the ambit and sweep of freedom of speech and expression or exceed the boundary that is not permissible?.(d) Whether such comments (which are not meant for self protection) defeat the concept of constitutional compassion and also conception of constitutional sensitivity?”.The questions framed by the court raises an issue of whether free speech can be restricted on the grounds of “constitutional compassion” and “constitutional sensitivity”..Speaking to Bar & Bench, advocate Dushyant Arora had this to say:.“The manner in which these questions have been worded makes it look like it has already made up its mind. The only question the court needs to consider is whether such speech can be restricted under the exceptions to Freedom of Speech. Constitutional compassion and sensitivity do not form a part of such exceptions.”.The court has also stayed the investigation in the FIR lodged in relation to the incident..The case will now be heard on September 27..Read the full order below.