The Supreme Court of India has recently ruled that a fundamental right under Article 19/21 can be enforced not just against the State, but also against individuals or entities other than the State. This ruling was made during a case that sought to determine if the right to freedom of speech and expression, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), could be limited by grounds beyond those outlined in Article 19(2).
Understanding the Scope of Article 19
The Constitution of India, through Article 19, guarantees its citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. This provision typically comes into play when citizens seek to challenge actions taken by the state or its instrumentalities.
As per Article 19(1) of the Constitution, Indian citizens have specific rights including the right to freedom of speech and expression; the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; the right to form associations or unions; the right to unrestricted movement throughout India; the right to reside and settle in any part of India; and the right to practice any profession or carry out any trade or business.
On the other hand, Article 19(2) allows the State to enact laws that impose reasonable restrictions on these rights. Such restrictions can be imposed in the interests of maintaining India’s sovereignty and integrity, ensuring state security, fostering friendly relations with foreign states, upholding public order and decency, or dealing with contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.
The Impact of Supreme Court’s Ruling
Some fundamental rights, like the prohibition against untouchability, trafficking, and bonded labor, explicitly apply to both the state and individual citizens. Now, the Supreme Court’s recent interpretation imposes an obligation on the state to ensure that private entities also adhere to the Constitutional norms.
For instance, this interpretation could potentially open the door for enforcing privacy rights against a private doctor or the right to free speech against a private social media company.
Previous Court Rulings and International Perspectives
While outlining its decision, the court referred to the 2017 judgement in the Puttaswamy case. In this case, a nine-judge bench upheld privacy as a fundamental right. The government had argued that privacy, being enforceable against other citizens, cannot be elevated to the status of a fundamental right against the state.
The Court also considered international perspectives, comparing the American approach with the practices of European Courts. It cited the US Supreme Court’s judgement in New York Times vs. Sullivan. This case found that defamation law, as applied by the state against The New York Times, was inconsistent with the Constitutional guarantee of free speech and expression. As a result, US law has shifted from a purely vertical approach (where rights can only be enforced against the State) to a horizontal one (where they can also be enforced against other citizens).
Implications for Civil Services Examination
The recent ruling on Article 19 could significantly influence questions asked during the UPSC Civil Services Examination. For instance, a question on ‘Right to Privacy’ under the Constitution of India has been included in the 2021 Prelims. Similarly, an understanding of the scope of Fundamental Rights in light of the latest Supreme Court judgement on Right to Privacy was sought in the 2018 Mains examination.
The Court’s ruling underscores the evolving nature of Constitutional interpretation and its implications on Fundamental Rights. It emphasizes how such interpretations can influence not just the interpretation of the law, but also its application in various sectors, including academia and competitive exams.