(Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
Subramanian Swamy ________________ Petitioner
v.
Union of India, Min. of Law & Ors. ______ Respondent(s)
Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s). 184/2014, decided on July 8, 2015
With
W.P. (Crl.) No. 8/2015, W.P. (Crl.) No. 19/2015, T.P. (Crl.) No. 102-105/2015, T.P. (Crl.) No. 94-101/2015, W.P. (Crl.) No. 56/2015, W.P. (Crl.) No. 64/2015, W.P.(C) No. 218/2015, W.P. (Crl.) No. 62/2015, W.P. (Crl.) No. 63/2015, SLP (Crl) No. 2295/2015, W.P. (Crl.) No. 67/2015, W.P. (Crl.) No. 79/2015, W.P. (Crl.) No. 73/2015, W.P. (Crl.) No. 82/2015, W.P. (Crl.) No. 80/2015, W.P. (Crl.) No. 77/2015, W.P. (Crl.) No. 91/2015, W.P. (Crl.) No. 98/2015, SLP (Crl) No. 3749/2015, W.P. (Crl.) No. 96/2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India and Mr. P.S. Narsimha, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India, pray for three days time to file the counter affidavit. As undertaken, the counter affidavit shall be filed by 11.07.2015.
Learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu shall also file the counter affidavit by that date.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy, petitioner-in-person submitted that there is no need for filing the rejoinder affidavit. We are also of the considered opinion that there is no necessity for filing any rejoinder affidavit in any case as this Court will be addressing only with regard to the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
At this juncture, it is submitted by Mr. Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India, that the matter should be referred to the Constitution Bench, regard being had to the issue, i.e., Article 19(2) of the Constitution, falls for consideration in this matter. Mr. Andhyarujina, learned Amicus Curiae, has supported the view and perception of the learned Attorney General. In our considered opinion, the said facet shall be addressed to and dealt with while dealing with the merits of the case.
Be it noted, in the writ petition, a contention has been raised that in number of countries, criminal defamation has been abolished. The question, thus, emerges whether abolition of such a criminal action in other countries can really have any impact or effect when this Court adjudges or decides the constitutional validity of a statutory provision, regard being had to our written, controlled and organic Constitution.
Mr. Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India, has submitted that he will be in a position to argue the matter on 14.07.2015. Let the matter be listed on 14.07.2015
All other matters be listed on that day. Learned counsel for the parties in each case shall file their propositions of law they intend to advance in course of their arguments.
———
