Arguments Summary Day 2: November 8, 2016.

Mr. Khan, represented by Mr. Kapil Sibal, denied making the statement. Mr. Nariman suggested to the Court that the print and electronic media which published the press conference in which Mr. Khan made those remarks, be added as respondents in the case. Referring to observations in Manoj Narula v. Union of India, Mr. Nariman contended that ‘constitutional morality’, ‘constitutional trust’, ‘good governance’ and ‘oath of office’, must be practically implemented. Ministers must adhere to Nolan’s Principles, especially owing to the language used in the oath taken by Ministers. Mr. Nariman further contended that Mr. Khan is liable under the tort law, since it includes public law remedies. He drew the Court’s attention to the views of the Canadian Supreme Court which propounded the doctrine of ‘negligent investigation’ that attracts principles of tort. The Bench decided to debate on the issue after receiving a response from Mr. Khan.