Team  SoOLEGAL

Nariman proposed to create separate Civil Rights law to protect people against the fundamental rights violations by private individuals or companies

Team SoOLEGAL 1 Aug 2017 11:55am

Nariman proposed to create separate Civil Rights law to protect people against the fundamental rights violations by private individuals or companies

Senior Advocate and prominent legal adviser Fali S Nariman today notifies the Supreme Court a decree like Civil Rights Act should have been encircled to empower the civilians to secure their Fundamental Rights against violation by other individuals or organizations.

Nariman, as an impartial advisor helping the Bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra in the case in which the Apex Court has taken serious note of naming the popular Bulandshehr gang rape incident a “Political conspiracy” by Uttar Pradesh Minister and Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan.

 Khan had offered an absolute statement of regret on December 15. Still, the court has directed Nariman to help the court to make a decision on four critical queries.

Nariman stated that under the Civil Rights Act in third part of the Constitution ensures protection against violation by the State but isn’t fit to do same in case of private individuals or companies. Nariman proposed the court to reconsider expansion of Article 21 or direct the government to initiatives to install a separate law for Civil Rights violations by private individuals.

The four questions the court settling on is;

When a victim of alleged rape, assault, gang rape or murder files a complaint against the offender or group of offenders, regardless of whether any individual holding a place in public office or a person in authority or in command of Government, should be permitted to remark on the offense by naming it the consequences of a “political conspiracy”, more so, when as an individual, he has nothing to do with the offenses in question?

Should the State, the protector of realm and accountable for keeping law and order situation, permit these remarks as they have the probable painful effect causing distress on the psyche of the victim as regards the fair investment and, in a way, the entire system?

Whether the statements do come within the ambit and sweep of freedom of speech and expression or exceed the boundary that is not permissible?

Whether such comments (which are not meant for self protection) defeat the concept of constitutional compassion and also conception of constitutional sensitivity?

Tagged: Justice Dipak Misra   Fali S Nariman  
Did you find this write up useful? YES 2 NO 0
Send
Featured Members view all

New Members view all

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.