- (1.) Mr. Narsimha, learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel and Mr. Shekhar, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the complainants, while making a prayer for grant of four weeks time to file the counter affidavit, submitted that the points that have been urged by the Petitioner and which have been enumerated by this Court vide order dated 30.10.2014 are not acceptable in the constitutional canvass. They have basically referred to two contentions raised by Mr. Subramanian Swamy, the Petitioner, who had appeared in person. The said contentions read as follows: "(a) The provisions contained in Sections 499 and 500 Indian Penal Code, travel beyond the restriction clause enshrined Under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, for that really constricts the freedom of speech beyond reasonable limit. (b) The very purpose of Article 19(2), as would be evident from the debate in the provisional Parliament, was not meant to put such restrictions and, therefore, such an enormous restriction cannot be thought of Under Article 19(2) to support the constitutionality of the said provisions and further it will violate the concept of rule of law." It is submitted by them that Article 19(2) of the Constitution itself imposes the restriction and, therefore, the submissions put forth by Mr. Subramanian Swamy that the provisions contained in Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code travel beyond the restrictions as enshrined Under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India and reference to the debate in the provisional Parliament are unsustainable.
(2.) At this juncture, we have thought it apt to have the assistance of Mr. K. Parasaran, learned senior counsel and Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel to assist the Court. Apart from the contentions which were raised by Mr. Subramanian Swamy, which were recorded in our previous order, today, as we are obliged, we must record the submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, as has been stated hereinbefore, the emphasis is on the constitutional restriction, as incorporated Under Article 19(2). The said Article 19(2) reads as follows: "(2) Nothing in Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence."
(3.) Mr. Dwivedi, Mr. Narsimha, Mr. Giri and Mr. Shekhar, learned senior counsel, would give immense emphasis on the phrase "defamation or incitement to an offence". To buttress the stand that the word 'defamation' being there in the Article itself and that being there in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code which defines 'defamation' and also provides enormous safeguards by way of number of exceptions, there can be violation of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.;