Judgement Briefs

Constitutional Law

Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh

(2023) 4 SCC 1

Citation
(2023) 4 SCC 1
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
3 January 2023
Bench
S. Abdul Nazeer; B.R. Gavai; A.S. Bopanna; V. Ramasubramanian; B.V. Nagarathna

Facts

  • The proceedings arose partly from a violent incident in Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, involving robbery and the alleged gang rape of a woman and her minor daughter.
  • While the criminal investigation was pending, a minister in the Uttar Pradesh Government publicly described the incident as a political conspiracy.
  • The victims argued that such statements by a public official:
  • undermined a fair investigation;
  • affected their dignity;
  • discouraged confidence in the justice system; and
  • raised questions about governmental responsibility for ministerial speech.
  • The matter was combined with another proceeding concerning statements made by a minister in Kerala.
  • A Constitution Bench considered broader questions concerning freedom of speech, horizontal application of fundamental rights, State responsibility and constitutional torts.

Issue

  • Whether restrictions beyond those expressly mentioned in Article 19(2) may be imposed on speech by relying on other fundamental rights.
  • Whether rights under Articles 19 and 21 may be enforced against persons other than the State.
  • Whether the State has a positive duty to protect Article 21 rights against interference by private persons.
  • Whether every statement made by a minister is attributable to the government under collective responsibility.
  • Whether a minister’s statement can itself create liability as a constitutional tort.

Rule

  • Majority
  • The grounds in Article 19(2) are exhaustive; courts cannot create additional restrictions on speech.
  • Fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 may, in appropriate circumstances, operate against persons other than the State.
  • The State has an affirmative obligation to protect life and personal liberty against reasonably foreseeable threats, including private interference.
  • Collective ministerial responsibility does not automatically make every personal statement of a minister a statement of the government.
  • A mere statement is not, by itself, a constitutional tort unless it is connected with an official act or omission causing legal injury.

Application

  • Majority opinion
  • The majority refused to create a new restriction on speech merely because a statement might conflict with another person’s dignity or liberty.
  • Any legal restriction must fit within Article 19(2), such as defamation, public order, contempt of court, or incitement.
  • At the same time, the Constitution does not permit the State to remain passive when private conduct threatens life, liberty or dignity.
  • The government may therefore be required to prevent, investigate and remedy violations of Article 21.
  • Regarding ministerial responsibility, the Court distinguished between:
  • an official statement expressing governmental policy; and
  • a minister’s personal or casual opinion.
  • Collective responsibility ordinarily makes ministers answerable for decisions of the Council of Ministers.
  • It does not operate in reverse so that every statement by every minister automatically becomes the government’s constitutional act.
  • A constitutional tort requires more than offensive words.
  • Liability may arise where the statement leads to, accompanies, or reflects an official act or omission that causes injury.
  • Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s separate opinion
  • Justice Nagarathna disagreed with the majority’s broad horizontal application of Articles 19 and 21.
  • She considered that fundamental rights ordinarily operate against the State unless:
  • the Constitution expressly applies them horizontally;
  • legislation creates private obligations; or
  • established legal remedies apply.
  • She agreed that the State has positive duties to protect individuals.
  • On attribution, she stated that a minister’s speech may bind the government where it represents or communicates an official governmental position.
  • A purely personal statement should not automatically be attributed to the Council of Ministers.
  • She also emphasised the serious constitutional responsibility of public officials to avoid degrading or irresponsible speech.

Conclusion

  • By a 4:1 majority, the Court held that Article 19(2) contains an exhaustive list of permissible speech restrictions.
  • Courts cannot add new restrictions merely by balancing speech against another fundamental right.
  • The majority recognised that Articles 19 and 21 may be enforceable against non-State actors in appropriate situations.
  • The State has a positive obligation to protect Article 21 rights from private interference.
  • A minister’s statement is not automatically attributable to the government merely because of collective responsibility.
  • A statement alone does not constitute a constitutional tort unless connected with an official act or omission causing injury.