The Supreme Court of India, in a recent unanimous verdict, ruled against any additional restrictions on the freedom of speech for ministers. This decision, which came about in response to a case concerning remarks made by a state minister about a 2016 rape incident, is deemed significant in the light of continuous debates on freedom of speech and its boundaries.
Background of the Case
The case under scrutiny was Kaushal Kishor v the State of UP. This pertained to a 2016 rape incident in Bulandshahar, where the then Minister of the State termed it as a ‘political conspiracy and nothing else’. A writ petition was filed by the survivors challenging the minister’s statement, which prompted the Supreme Court to consider the issue of whether restrictions could be placed on a public office holder’s freedom of speech and expression.
Supreme Court’s Majority Judgement
The court, in its majority judgement, clarified that ministers, just like other citizens, have the right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a), which can be subjected to the reasonable restrictions enlisted in Article 19(2). The court emphasized its role as a protector of fundamental rights rather than restrictions. The majority judgement also differentiated between the government’s overall responsibility and individual ministerial responsibility for any inappropriate or offensive remarks.
In terms of collective responsibility, the flow is from the Council of Ministers to individual ministers, not vice versa. Thus, it was ruled out that the concept of collective responsibility could be extended to every statement made by a Minister outside the House of the People/Legislative Assembly. The court also discussed the concept of a constitutional tort, a legal tool to hold the state accountable for its agents’ actions. They concluded that a minister’s statement against an individual’s fundamental rights might not be actionable unless it results in actual harm or loss.
Minority Judgement
The minority judgement raised concerns about hate speech in public discourse, emphasizing the particular responsibility of public officials to exercise restraint in their speech. It also suggested attributing vicarious responsibility to the government if a minister’s statement represents government views and relates to state affairs.
On the notion of constitutional torts, the minority judgement held the view that there should be a comprehensive legal framework to define acts and omissions amounting to ‘constitutional tort’.
About Article 19
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. Typically invoked against the state, it provides provisions like the right to assemble peaceably, move freely throughout the territory of India, and practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business, among others. However, reasonable restrictions can be imposed to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India.
Addressing Future Challenges
There are sufficient provisions in current law to deal with speeches that promote enmity, violence or infringe upon others’ freedoms. The real challenge lies in the lack of political will to act against hate speech, particularly when it involves government representatives. Governments can sometimes misuse legal provisions meant to curb hate speech against dissenting citizens.
Additionally, parliamentary privileges are granted to members for smooth governance. However, these rights must align with fundamental rights as parliamentarians are representatives working for citizen welfare. Any divergence from fundamental rights could potentially undermine the essence of democracy meant to protect citizen rights.
