<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to consider if any greater restriction can be imposed on public functionaries' right to freedom of speech and expression than those mentioned under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, and B V Nagarathna wondered if some general guidelines could be laid down without factual aspects of the matter.</p>.<p>The court also pointed out that the instant case was related to a statement by then Uttar Pradesh Minister Azam Khan about the Bulandshahr gang-rape case victims. However, he had subsequently apologised.</p>.<p>The bench asked if the issue has become academic.</p>.<p>On this, advocate Kaleeswaram Raj said the recurrence of such incidents across the country indicated that the issue was relevant and not merely academic.</p>.<p>The court said it might not be able to lay down guidelines without concrete facts.</p>.<p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the threshold of restriction to freedom of speech and expression for the public functionaries could be much higher than the common person.</p>.<p>However, it might not be possible for the court to define the contours of such restrictions beyond those provided in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.</p>.<p>The bench fixed the matter for consideration on November 15.</p>.<p>A three-judge bench had on October 5, 2017, referred the matter to the Constitution bench to adjudicate various issues, including whether a public functionary or a minister can claim freedom of speech while expressing views on sensitive matters that are under investigation.</p>.<p>A man whose wife and daughter were allegedly gang-raped in July 2016 on a highway near Bulandshahr sought transfer of the case to Delhi and lodging of an FIR against Azam Khan for his controversial statement.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to consider if any greater restriction can be imposed on public functionaries' right to freedom of speech and expression than those mentioned under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, and B V Nagarathna wondered if some general guidelines could be laid down without factual aspects of the matter.</p>.<p>The court also pointed out that the instant case was related to a statement by then Uttar Pradesh Minister Azam Khan about the Bulandshahr gang-rape case victims. However, he had subsequently apologised.</p>.<p>The bench asked if the issue has become academic.</p>.<p>On this, advocate Kaleeswaram Raj said the recurrence of such incidents across the country indicated that the issue was relevant and not merely academic.</p>.<p>The court said it might not be able to lay down guidelines without concrete facts.</p>.<p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the threshold of restriction to freedom of speech and expression for the public functionaries could be much higher than the common person.</p>.<p>However, it might not be possible for the court to define the contours of such restrictions beyond those provided in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.</p>.<p>The bench fixed the matter for consideration on November 15.</p>.<p>A three-judge bench had on October 5, 2017, referred the matter to the Constitution bench to adjudicate various issues, including whether a public functionary or a minister can claim freedom of speech while expressing views on sensitive matters that are under investigation.</p>.<p>A man whose wife and daughter were allegedly gang-raped in July 2016 on a highway near Bulandshahr sought transfer of the case to Delhi and lodging of an FIR against Azam Khan for his controversial statement.</p>
