2023 (1) TMI 1469 - SC - Indian Laws

Invocation of fundamental rights - right to free speech - claim of fundamental rights against anyone other than the State or its instrumentalities - Protection of rights of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India even against a threat to the liberty of a citizen by the acts or omissions of another citizen or private agency - role and responsibility of a Minister and the vicarious liability/responsibility of a Government to any statement made by him - statement by a Minister inconsistent with the rights of a citizen under Part III of the Constitution constitutes a violation of such constitutional rights (constitutional tort). AS PER (S. Abdul Nazeer) (B.R. Gavai) (A.S. Bopanna) and (V. Ramasubramanian). Whether the grounds specified in Article 19(2) in relation to which reasonable restrictions on the right to free speech can be imposed by law are exhaustive or can restrictions on the right to free speech be imposed on grounds not found in Article 19(2) by invoking other fundamental rights? - HELD THAT - The grounds lined up in Article 19(2) for restricting the right to free speech are exhaustive. Under the guise of invoking other fundamental rights or under the guise of two fundamental rights staking a competing claim against each other additional restrictions not found in Article 19(2) cannot be imposed on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(a) upon any individual. Whether a fundamental right under Article 19 or 21 can be claimed against anyone other than the State or its instrumentalities? - HELD THAT - A fundamental right under Article 19/21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities. Whether the State is under a duty to affirmatively protect the rights of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India even against a threat to the liberty of a citizen by the acts or omissions of another citizen or private agency? - HELD THAT - The State is under a duty to affirmatively protect the rights of a person under Article 21 whenever there is a threat to personal liberty even by a non State actor. 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? - HELD 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. Whether a statement by a Minister inconsistent with the rights of a citizen under Part III of the Constitution constitutes a violation of such constitutional rights and is actionable as Constitutional Tort ? - HELD THAT - A mere statement made by a Minister inconsistent with the rights of a citizen under PartIII of the Constitution may not constitute a violation of the constitutional rights and become actionable as Constitutional tort. 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. The writ petition and the special leave petition are directed to be listed before the appropriate bench after getting orders from Hon ble the Chief Justice of India. AS PER NAGARATHNA J. Are the grounds specified in Article 19(2) in relation to which reasonable restrictions on the right to free speech can be imposed by law exhaustive or can restrictions on the right to free speech be imposed on grounds not found in Article 19(2) by invoking other fundamental rights? - HELD THAT - It is for the Parliament in its wisdom to enact a legislation or code to restrain citizens in general and public functionaries in particular from making disparaging or vitriolic remarks against fellow citizens having regard to the strict parameters of Article 19(2) and bearing in mind the freedom under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. Can a fundamental right under Article 19 or 21 of the Constitution of India be claimed other than against the State or its instrumentalities? - HELD THAT - It is also for the respective political parties to regulate and control the actions and speech of its functionaries and members. This could be through enactment of a Code of Conduct which would prescribe the limits of permissible speech by functionaries and members of the respective political parties. Whether the State is under a duty to affirmatively protect the rights of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India even against a threat to the liberty of a citizen by the acts or omissions of another citizen or private agency? - HELD THAT - Any citizen who is prejudiced by any form of attack as a result of speech/expression through any medium targeted against her/him or by speech which constitutes hate speech or any species thereof whether such attack or speech is by a public functionary or otherwise may approach the Court of Law under Criminal and Civil statutes and seek appropriate remedies. Whenever permissible civil remedies in the nature of declaratory remedies injunctions as well as pecuniary damages may be awarded as prescribed under the relevant statutes. Can a statement made by a Minister traceable to any affairs of State or for protecting the Government be attributed vicariously to the Government itself especially in view of the principle of Collective Responsibility? - HELD THAT - A statement made by a Minister if traceable to any affairs of the State or for protecting the Government can be attributed vicariously to the Government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility so long as such statement represents the view of the Government also. If such a statement is not consistent with the view of the Government then it is attributable to the Minister personally. Whether a statement by a Minister inconsistent with the rights of a citizen under Part Three of the Constitution constitutes a violation of such constitutional rights and is actionable as Constitutional Tort ? - HELD THAT - A proper legal framework is necessary to define the acts or omissions which would amount to constitutional torts and the manner in which the same would be redressed or remedied on the basis of judicial precedent. It is not prudent to treat all cases where a statement made by a public functionary resulting in harm or loss to a person/citizen as constitutional torts - Public functionaries could be proceeded against personally if their statement is inconsistent with the views of the Government. If however such views are consistent with the views of the Government or are endorsed by the Government then the same may be vicariously attributed to the State on the basis of the principle of collective responsibility and appropriate remedies may be sought before a court of law. Conclusion - i) On question 1 all the judges gave same view. ii) On question 2 majority held that A fundamental right under Article 19/21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities wheras Hon ble Nagarathna. J held that A a fundamental right under Article 19/21 cannot be enforced against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities. However they may be the basis for seeking common law remedies. iii) On question 3 majority held that The State is under a duty to affirmatively protect the rights of a person under Article 21 whenever there is a threat to personal liberty even by a private actor. wheras Hon ble Nagarathna. J held that The duty cast upon the State under Article 21 is a negative duty not to deprive a person of his life and personal liberty except in accordance with law. iv) On question 4 majority held 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. wheras Hon ble Nagarathna. J held that A statement made by a Minister if traceable to any affairs of the State or for protecting the Government can be attributed vicariously to the Government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility so long as such statement represents the view of the Government also. If such a statement is not consistent with the view of the Government then it is attributable to the Minister personally. v) On question 5 majority held that A mere statement made by a Minister inconsistent with the rights of a citizen under Part-III of the Constitution may not constitute a violation of constitutional rights and become actionable as a Constitutional tort. whereas Hon ble Nagarathna. J held that A proper legal framework is necessary to define the acts or omissions which would amount to constitutional torts and the manner in which the same would be redressed or remedied on the basis of judicial precedent. It is not prudent to treat all cases where a statement made by a public functionary resulting in harm or loss to a person/citizen as constitutional torts. Petitions are directed to be listed before an appropriate Bench after seeking orders of Hon ble the Chief Justice of India.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The Supreme Court considered five key legal questions in this judgment:

• Whether the grounds specified in Article 19(2) for imposing reasonable restrictions on the right to free speech are exhaustive, or if restrictions can be imposed on grounds not found in Article 19(2) by invoking other fundamental rights.
• Whether a fundamental right under Article 19 or 21 can be claimed against entities other than the 'State' or its instrumentalities.
• Whether the State has a duty to affirmatively protect the rights of a citizen under Article 21 against threats from other citizens or private agencies.
• Whether a statement made by a Minister, traceable to state affairs or for protecting the Government, can be attributed vicariously to the Government itself, considering the principle of Collective Responsibility.
• Whether a statement by a Minister, inconsistent with the rights of a citizen under Part Three of the Constitution, constitutes a violation of such constitutional rights and is actionable as a 'Constitutional Tort'.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Grounds for Restricting Free Speech

• Legal Framework and Precedents: Article 19(2) of the Constitution specifies grounds for imposing reasonable restrictions on free speech, such as sovereignty, public order, and morality.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that the grounds in Article 19(2) are exhaustive and additional restrictions cannot be imposed by invoking other fundamental rights.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court emphasized that any law restricting free speech must fall within the limitations provided in Article 19(2).
• Conclusions: The grounds in Article 19(2) for restricting free speech are exhaustive.

Issue 2: Fundamental Rights Against Non-State Actors

• Legal Framework and Precedents: Fundamental rights are generally enforceable against the State and its instrumentalities, as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court acknowledged that while fundamental rights are primarily against the State, certain rights can have horizontal application, meaning they can be enforced against private parties in specific contexts.
• Conclusions: Fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced against non-State actors in certain circumstances, but generally, they are enforceable against the State.

Issue 3: State's Duty to Protect Rights Against Private Threats

• Legal Framework and Precedents: Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that the State has a duty to protect the rights of individuals against threats from non-State actors, as part of its obligation under Article 21.
• Conclusions: The State is under a duty to affirmatively protect the rights of individuals under Article 21 against threats from private actors.

Issue 4: Ministerial Statements and Government Liability

• Legal Framework and Precedents: The principle of collective responsibility under Articles 75(3) and 164(2) of the Constitution.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that a statement made by a Minister, even if related to state affairs, cannot be attributed vicariously to the Government unless it represents the Government's view.
• Conclusions: Ministerial statements are not automatically attributable to the Government under the principle of collective responsibility.

Issue 5: Ministerial Statements as Constitutional Torts

• Legal Framework and Precedents: The concept of constitutional torts involves holding the State liable for violations of fundamental rights by its agents.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that a mere statement by a Minister does not constitute a constitutional tort unless it results in harm or loss due to an act or omission by state officers.
• Conclusions: Ministerial statements inconsistent with constitutional rights are not actionable as constitutional torts unless they lead to actionable harm.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• The grounds specified in Article 19(2) for restricting free speech are exhaustive, and additional restrictions cannot be imposed by invoking other fundamental rights.
• Fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced against non-State actors in certain circumstances.
• The State has a duty to affirmatively protect the rights of individuals under Article 21 against threats from private actors.
• A statement made by a Minister cannot be attributed vicariously to the Government unless it aligns with the Government's view.
• A mere statement by a Minister does not constitute a constitutional tort unless it results in harm due to an act or omission by state officers.