<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order on whether restrictions can be imposed on a public functionary's right to freedom of speech and expression.</p>.<p>A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice S A Nazeer heard the arguments of Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and lawyers from other parties on the matter.</p>.<p>The bench also comprised Justices B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, and B V Nagarathna. </p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/51-former-and-sitting-mps-face-trial-under-pmla-sc-1162550.html" target="_blank">51 former and sitting MPs face trial under PMLA: SC</a></strong></p>.<p>"How can we frame a code of conduct for legislators? We would be encroaching into the powers of the legislature and the executive," Justice Gavai observed.</p>.<p>The attorney general submitted before the bench that any additions or modifications of restrictions to a fundamental right have to come from Parliament as a matter of Constitutional principle.</p>.<p>Mehta said the issue is more of an academic question -- of whether a writ can be filed citing Article 21 for action against a particular statement.</p>.<p>A three-judge bench 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.</p>.<p>The need for authoritative pronouncement on the issue arose as there were arguments that a minister could not take a personal view and his statement has to be with government policy. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order on whether restrictions can be imposed on a public functionary's right to freedom of speech and expression.</p>.<p>A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice S A Nazeer heard the arguments of Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and lawyers from other parties on the matter.</p>.<p>The bench also comprised Justices B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, and B V Nagarathna. </p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/51-former-and-sitting-mps-face-trial-under-pmla-sc-1162550.html" target="_blank">51 former and sitting MPs face trial under PMLA: SC</a></strong></p>.<p>"How can we frame a code of conduct for legislators? We would be encroaching into the powers of the legislature and the executive," Justice Gavai observed.</p>.<p>The attorney general submitted before the bench that any additions or modifications of restrictions to a fundamental right have to come from Parliament as a matter of Constitutional principle.</p>.<p>Mehta said the issue is more of an academic question -- of whether a writ can be filed citing Article 21 for action against a particular statement.</p>.<p>A three-judge bench 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.</p>.<p>The need for authoritative pronouncement on the issue arose as there were arguments that a minister could not take a personal view and his statement has to be with government policy. </p>