Article 19(2) grounds for restricting free speech are exhaustive, fundamental rights enforceable against private parties

Kaushal Kishor Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

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.