Introduction :
This Judgment analyses the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) and the restrictions under Article 19 (2) of COI.
The judgment was delivered by a 4:1 majority. The dissenting opinion was delivered by Justice BV Na
The fact of the case :
▪ There were several writ petitions that resulted in the consideration of these issues before the Supreme Court:
▪ Writ Petitions were filed by the petitioners against the then Minister for Urban Development of the Government of Uttar Pradesh as he made statements that were outrageous to the modesty of the victims.
▪ There were two writ petitions filed in Kerela High Court because the then Minister of Electricity in the State of Kerela issued derogatory statements.
▪ Both the writ petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench of Kerela High Court on the ground that they were in the realm of moral values and not in the domain of the Court to decide.
▪ The petitioner here filed a Special Leave Appeal to the Supreme Court
▪ Since the questions in both petitions overlapped, they were clubbed and taken up by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
Issues Involved
▪ Whether reasonable restrictions specified under Article 19 (2) of the COI are exhaustive?
▪ Whether a fundamental right under Article 19 or Article 21 be claimed against anyone other than the State or its instrumentalities?
▪ Whether the State is under the duty to protect the rights of citizens under Article 21 of COI even against a threat to the liberty of a citizen by the acts or omissions of another citizen or private agency?
▪ Can a statement made by a Minister, traceable to any affairs of the State or for protecting the Government, be attributed vicariously to the Government itself, especially in view of the principle of Collective Responsibility?
▪ Whether a statement by a Minister, inconsistent with the rights of the citizens under Part III of COI constitutes a violation of such constitutional rights and is.
Judgement:
▪ The Court held that the restrictions provided for under Article 19 (2) of COI are exhaustive and cover all possible attacks on the individual, group/classes of people, society, the Court, the country and the State. If it doesn’t fall under Article 19(2) of COI will be unconstitutional.
▪ The rights conferred by Articles 15 (2) (a) and (b), 17, 20(2),21,23,24,29(2) of COI are enforceable against non-state actors also. The original thinking that fundamental rights can be enforceable only against States has changed over time. Thus, a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State or its instruments.
▪ The Court observed that at the time of the inception of the Constitution, it was not imagined or conceived that anyone other than State is capable of depriving a person of his life and personal liberty, except by committing a punishable offence.
▪ The Court concluded that a statement made by a Minister even if traceable to any affairs of the State or for protecting the Government, cannot be attributed vicariously to the Government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility.
▪ A mere statement made which is inconsistent with the rights of a citizen under Part III of COI may not constitute a violation of constitutional rights and become actionable. But if as a consequence of such a statement, any act of omission or commission is done by the officers resulting in harm or loss to a person/citizen then the same may be actionable as a constitutional tort.
Conclusion :
This is a landmark judgment passed by the Supreme Court regarding freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1)(a) of the COI. It reinforces the importance of the fundamental right of speech and expression in our democracy. Also, this judgment by a majority of 4:1 has held that our Constitution also envisages horizontal enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Part III of the COI.
“Nidhi Verma,” BBA LLB (H),2nd year student of Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University ( SRMU) Lucknow,26 October 2024.
Comments