Why in News?
- Recently, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously and rightly ruled out any additional control on free speech by ministers.
Background-
- The case Kaushal Kishor vs the State of UP, relates to the Bulandshahar rape incident of 2016, in which the then Minister of the State allegedly termed the incident a ‘political conspiracy and nothing else’.
- A writ petition was filed by the survivors before the Supreme Court and the court raised an crucial question: “Can restrictions be imposed on a public functionary’s freedom of speech and expression?”
Judgement of the Court-
- Majority Judgement-
- On Reasonable Restrictions- Under Article 19(1) (a), Like other citizens, ministers are guaranteed the right to freedom of expression, governed by the reasonable restrictions as written in Article 19(2) and those are enough.
- Because “The role of the court is to safeguard fundamental rights limited by lawful restrictions and not to protect restrictions and make the rights residual privileges.”
- On Collective Responsibility- The majority ruling also made a valid distinction on the government’s vicarious responsibility for ill-judged or hateful remarks made by its individual ministers.
- It is impossible to extend the concept of collective responsibility to “any and every statement orally made by a Minister outside the House of the People and Legislative Assembly”.
- Statement by an Individual Minister- The court also addressed the question of whether the statement of a minister, that is inconsistent with the fundamental rights of citizens, can result in a constitutional violation.
- A constitutional violation is a legal tool that provides for the state to be held vicariously accountable for the actions of its agents.
- A mere statement by a minister that goes against an individual’s fundamental rights may not be actionable, but becomes actionable if it results in actual harm or loss.
- Dissenting Judgement-
- Over a Hateful Public Discourse- The minority judgment exhibit concern over a hateful public discourse – “hate speech, whatever its content, denies people dignity”.
- It speaks of the special duty of public functionaries and other persons of influence to be more accountable and restrained in their speech, to “understand and measure their words”.
- On Collective Responsibility- It is possible to attribute vicarious responsibility to the government if a minister’s view shows that of the government and is related to the affairs of the state.
- If such a statement is not consistent with the view of the Government, then it is attributable to the Minister personally.
- Statement by an Individual Minister- It holds the view that there should be an appropriate legal framework to define acts and omissions that amount to ‘constitutional tort’.
Article 19-
- Article 19 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression to all citizens, and is generally invoked against the state.
- Article 19(1) in The Constitution Of India 1949, All citizens shall have the right
- (a) to freedom of speech and expression,
- (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms,
- (c) to form associations or unions,
- (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India,
- (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India, and
- (f) omitted,
- (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
- Article 19(2) in The Constitution of India,
- Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or curb the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable limits on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.