Kaushal Kishore v State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors

Case Details

Case Name: Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.[1]
Court: Supreme Court of India (Constitutional Bench)
Date of Judgment: 3rd January 2023
Bench: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice V. Ramasubramanian, and Justice B.V. Nagarathna

Brief Facts

On 29 July 2016, a young girl and her mother were gang-raped on National Highway 91 in Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh. The next day, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed, but the family was dissatisfied with the state police’s handling of the investigation. In response, the Allahabad High Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over the case on 12 August 2016. The minor victim then approached the Supreme Court on 13 August 2016, after the then Minister for Urban Development in Uttar Pradesh publicly called the incident a “political conspiracy”. She sought an FIR against the minister and for the case to be transferred out of Uttar Pradesh.

The Supreme Court appointed Mr. Fali S. Nariman as an amicus curiae, transferred the CBI investigation out of the state, and asked the minister to explain his remarks. After his first apology was rejected for being conditional, the court accepted his unconditional apology on 16 December 2016. On 20 April 2017, the court referred the issue of whether a minister’s statement could be considered the government’s statement to a Constitution Bench. On 5 October 2017, the court also referred the question of creating a code of conduct for ministers and public officials. Two related petitions from the Kerala High Court, involving derogatory remarks made by a state minister about women, were combined with this case since the legal issues were similar.

Issues

1. Are the reasons for limiting free speech and expression under Article 19(2) exhaustive, or can other restrictions be added by referring to other fundamental rights like Article 21?[2]
2. Can a fundamental right under Article 19 or Article 21 be used to hold individuals or organizations other than the government and its agencies accountable?
3. Does the government have a responsibility to actively protect a citizen’s rights under Article 21 even if the threat comes from private or non-governmental sources?
4. Can a statement made by a minister that violates a citizen’s fundamental rights outlined in Part III be considered a constitutional tort on its own?
5. Can such a ministerial statement be treated as an official government action under the principle of collective ministerial responsibility mentioned in Article 75(3)?

Judgment

The Constitution Bench answered the reference with a 4:1 majority. The majority opinion was written by Ramasubramanian, J. (joined by Nazeer, Bopanna, and Gavai, JJ.), with Nagarathna, J. agreeing in part and disagreeing in part. Regarding the first issue, the Court held that the reasons listed in Article 19(2) are exhaustive, and courts cannot add more limits on speech simply because it might conflict with another right in Part III. On the second and third issues, the Court affirmed that Articles 19 and 21 can be used against non-state actors when needed, and the government has a duty to protect a citizen’s Article 21 rights even if the threat originates from a private person.

For the fourth issue, the majority stated that a minister’s statement contravening a citizen’s fundamental rights is not inherently a constitutional tort; the minister can be held responsible only if the statement results in an actionable government omission or commission that causes harm. On the fifth issue, the court clarified that a minister’s statement cannot automatically be considered a government statement just because of their position; the statement must be connected to government affairs, made for its benefit, or reflect official policy. Nagarathna, J., diverging on horizontal enforcement, stated that speech derogatory to dignity is not protected under Article 19(1)(a), rendering a balancing of rights unnecessary in this specific context.

Ratio Decidendi

A statement given by a public official, even if it relates to government matters, does not automatically mean it is constitutionally actionable or results in the government being held vicariously responsible through collective responsibility. Accountability only arises if the statement triggers another government action or inaction that causes actual harm. Similarly, any limitations on free speech and expression must strictly adhere to the grounds listed in Article 19(2) and cannot be expanded by referencing other fundamental rights.

Final Decision

The constitutional bench addressed all five referred questions and handled the writ petition without providing any additional relief against the minister, noting that an unconditional apology had already been given and accepted by the Court.

References

[1] Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2023) 4 SCC 1 (India).
[2] INDIA CONST. art. 19(1)(a), 19(2), 21, 75(3).