• Case Analysis: Kaushal Kishor V. State Of Uttar Pradesh
• W.P. (Cr) No. 113/2016
• Bench Composition:
  • Hon'ble. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
  • Hon'ble. Justice B.R. Gavai
  • Hon'ble. Justice A.S. Bopanna
  • Hon'ble. Justice V. Ramasubramanian
  • Hon'ble. Justice B.V. Nagarathna
• Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India
• Relevant Statutes:
  • Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a)
  • Constitution of India, Article 19(2)

Brief Facts
On July 29, 2016, a horrific incident occurred on National Highway 91, where a young girl and her mother were allegedly gang-raped. While passing through Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, their car was halted by criminals who dragged them out and committed the heinous crime in a nearby field. Upon filing an FIR, Uttar Pradesh Minister and Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan made a controversial statement, terming the incident a 'political conspiracy' against the state government.

In August 2016, the victims approached the Supreme Court of India, seeking action against the minister for his remarks. They expressed concerns over the fairness of the investigation in Uttar Pradesh and requested the transfer of the case to another state. The Supreme Court appointed Mr. Fali S. Nariman as Amicus Curiae to assist in the case, ordering a stay on the investigation. Mr. Nariman emphasized the need for the Court to develop new mechanisms to ensure justice, maintain public confidence in trial fairness, clarify the principles governing police investigation interference, and address the implications of public remarks on the investigation or the victim.

On November 17, 2016, the Court directed Mr. Azam Khan to submit an unconditional apology. The primary issue identified by the Court was whether the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is restricted solely by Article 19(2) or whether it is also limited by other fundamental rights, particularly Article 21.

On April 20, 2017, the matter was referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench, with the Amicus Curiae instructed to formulate pertinent questions of law. These questions were submitted to the Court on July 31, 2017. A Constitution Bench, including Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah, and S. Ravindra Bhat, commenced hearing the matter on October 23, 2019.

Issues Involved:

1. Whether restrictions on Freedom of Speech and Expression can be imposed beyond those specified in Article 19(2) of the Constitution?
2. Whether individuals can invoke Article 21 of the Constitution to address violations of their right to life and liberty by non-State entities?
3. Whether the State is obligated to safeguard citizens from infringements upon their Right to Life and Personal Liberty by non-State actors?
4. Whether statements made by public officials can be attributed to the government when pertaining to state matters?
5. Whether governments can be held accountable for actions resulting in violations of constitutional rights due to statements made by public officials?

Judgment Of The Court
In the case of Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, WP (Cr) No. 113/2016, a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court deliberated on pivotal questions concerning the scope of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the enforceability of fundamental rights against non-State actors under Articles 19 and 21.

Ratio Decidendi
Justice Ramasubramanian, authoring the majority opinion, affirmed that the restrictions outlined in Article 19(2) are exhaustive, encompassing all permissible limitations on free speech. Citing precedent from Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. V. Union of India (1984) and Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. V. Union of India (1961), the bench held that any law not falling within the ambit of Article 19(2) would be unconstitutional. It emphasized the judiciary's role as a gatekeeper to uphold fundamental rights against undue restrictions, reinforcing that only the State, and not the judiciary, may impose such restrictions.

Obiter Dicta
Further addressing the issue of imposing additional restrictions beyond Article 19(2), the bench underscored the constitutional imperative of mutual respect and fraternity among citizens, essential for the exercise of all fundamental rights. Referring to Article 51A(e) and prior judicial rulings, the court rejected the notion of imposing supplementary restrictions, affirming that fundamental rights cannot be curtailed under the guise of protecting other rights.

Availability of Article 19, 21 Rights Against Non-State Actors
On whether fundamental rights under Articles 19 or 21 could be claimed against non-State entities, the majority held in the affirmative. Justice Ramasubramanian noted that certain rights, such as those against discrimination and exploitation, apply universally, binding both State and non-State actors alike under specified circumstances. The bench cited instances where the Supreme Court extended the protective ambit of these rights to encompass actions by private entities, thereby reaffirming their enforceability beyond State institutions.

State's Duty to Protect Article 21 Rights
Addressing the duty of the State to safeguard individual liberties under Article 21 against non-State actors, the court unequivocally affirmed this obligation. Citing precedents including Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), the bench emphasized that the State must ensure an environment conducive to the enjoyment of fundamental rights, regardless of the actor threatening those rights.

Vicarious Liability of Government for Minister's Statements
On the issue of attributing ministerial statements to the State under the principle of collective responsibility, the majority rejected the automatic attribution of all ministerial statements to the government. It clarified that collective responsibility pertains primarily to official decisions and actions, not every oral statement by individual ministers. This interpretation aimed to delineate between political accountability and legal liability, safeguarding against unwarranted state attribution for every ministerial remark.

Constitutional Tort for Ministerial Statements
Finally, regarding the actionable nature of ministerial statements inconsistent with constitutional rights, the majority opined that while such statements may reflect poor constitutional morality, they do not per se constitute actionable constitutional torts. Emphasizing the distinction between opinion and action, the court held that actionable harm must result from ministerial statements to justify legal recourse.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court in Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors affirmed the exhaustive nature of Article 19(2) restrictions on free speech, extended the enforceability of Articles 19 and 21 against non-State actors, upheld the State's duty to protect Article 21 rights, clarified the limited scope of vicarious liability for ministerial statements, and defined the conditions under which ministerial statements may constitute actionable constitutional torts. This landmark judgment underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding fundamental rights while balancing constitutional principles of governance and individual liberties.