Controversial Uttar Pradesh Minister Azam Khan, whose alleged remarks on the Bulandshahr gangrape case raised a storm, remained unrepentant and on Monday maintained that he had not said anything against the victims and their family members.
Khan's comments came hours after the Supreme Court asked Azam Khan to explain his allegation that the recent Bulandshahr gangrape could be a “political conspiracy”. Seized with the demand for holding the trial outside Uttar Pradesh in the backdrop of Khan’s statement, the court also stayed the CBI probe in the case.
The SC sought the response of the Samajwadi Party Government in the State on the demand by the father of the minor victim, who was raped along with her mother on July 29, for shifting the trial and investigation of the case outside the State. The court fixed the matter for hearing on September 27.
The Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and C Nagappan appointed eminent jurist Fali Nariman as amicus curiae to examine whether persons holding public office can be allowed to make such a statement and if so, whether the State is duty bound to act against such persons as they have the potential of denying a fair probe to the victim.
On his part, Khan claimed he had not said anything against the victims and their family members. “I welcome what the Supreme Court said today. I have never said anything against the victims and their family members...I have said if four or five similar crimes are committed on a single day, there could be a conspiracy behind it,” he told reporters in lucknow.
The Samajwadi Party leader said he had always advocated that Islamic laws should be made applicable to rape cases and punishment should be meted out within a week.
Framing four questions of law involved in the case before it, the SC Bench sought Nariman’s assistance to determine whether such statements issued by a person in authority come within the scope of right to freedom of speech and expression.
If not, whether such a statement made by a person holding public office, who has nothing to do with the offence in question, will create potential “distrust” in the victim’s mind about fairness of investigation, and hence was it a sufficient ground to seek transfer of the case outside the State.
Khan's statement also attracted the court's attention to another aspect whether such comments defeat the concept of "constitutional compassion" and "constitutional sensitivity" as the State is meant to be the protector of law and order.
The petitioner, who is the father and husband of the two victims, through his counsel Kislay Pandey sought an FIR to be registered against Khan as his statement amounted to "outraging the modesty" of the victims.
The Minister had publicly insulted the victims by alleging that the incident was nothing else but a political conspiracy to malign the State Government. The petitioner even sought compensation for damages against the State authorities and police for failing to act promptly on the complaints of the victims.