Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Case Name and Citation :

Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2023) 4 SCC 1;  2023 INSC 4.

Court: Supreme Court of India

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.

Facts of the Case :

On July 29, 2016, a minor girl and her mother were gang-raped on National Highway 91 in Uttar Pradesh. The next day, an FIR was filed at the Bulandshahr Police Station.

On August 12, 2016, the Allahabad High Court directed the CBI to take over the investigation, dissatisfied with the state police’s handling of the case. Soon after, on August 13, 2016, the minor girl approached the Supreme Court, requesting the registration of an FIR against a minister for making derogatory statements regarding the incident. She also expressed distrust in the state authorities and requested the case be transferred to Delhi with a court-supervised CBI investigation.

The Supreme Court, led by Justices Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit issued a stay on the CBI investigation and transferred the case out of Uttar Pradesh. The Court appointed Mr. Fali S. Nariman as amicus curiae. However, the stay was lifted on September 8, 2016, allowing the CBI to proceed with the investigation, and the Allahabad High Court was instructed to cease proceedings on the case as the Supreme Court took charge.

On September 27, 2016, the Supreme Court ordered the CBI to issue a notice to the minister involved, asking for an explanation regarding his comments. Subsequently, on November 8, 2016, the minister, Azam Khan, denied making the alleged statements, attributing them to a misrepresentation by the media. The amicus curiae suggested that the news organizations submit audio recordings of the press conference for verification.

On November 17, 2016, the Supreme Court demanded an unconditional apology from the minister. The Court also directed the Uttar Pradesh government to admit the minor to a nearby central school chosen by her family, with all educational expenses covered by the state. However, on December 6, 2016, the Court rejected the minister’s initial apology for being conditional. Eventually, on December 16, 2016, the Supreme Court accepted his revised, unconditional apology.

On April 20, 2017, the Supreme Court referred a key legal question—whether a minister can make statements potentially influencing an ongoing investigation—to a Constitutional Bench. Later, on October 5, 2017, the case was referred for developing a code of conduct for ministers and public officials, including penalties for making statements that could interfere with legal proceedings.

Issues Raised :

Imposition of Restrictions on Freedom of Speech: Can the Court impose restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and expression that go beyond the existing reasonable limitations specified under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India by invoking other fundamental rights?

Enforcement of Fundamental Rights Against Non-State Actors: Is it possible to enforce a fundamental right under Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression) or Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) against individuals or entities other than the State or its instrumentalists?

Vicarious Attribution of Ministerial Statements: Should a minister’s statement, made in relation to State affairs or for government protection, be vicariously attributed to the government, particularly in light of the principle of collective responsibility?

Violation of Fundamental Rights by Ministerial Statements: Does a statement made by a minister that contradicts the rights guaranteed to citizens under Part III of the Constitution (fundamental rights) constitute a violation of those rights, thereby making it actionable as a ‘constitutional tort’?

Majority Opinion:

The majority of the bench ruled in favor of protecting the fundamental right to freedom of speech while recognizing the intrinsic value of personal dignity. The Court held that:

Balancing Fundamental Rights: The Court emphasized that when fundamental rights clash, it must strive to balance these rights without adding to the restrictions under Article 19(2). The enumerated grounds for restriction must be exhaustively adhered to, and no new restrictions could be constitutionally imposed.

Dignity and Freedom of Speech: The majority opined that restricting a public official’s speech solely based on perceived infringements on another’s dignity could violate the official’s right to freedom of expression. Public discourse should be robust, and public officials must have the space to express opinions without undue restraint, provided these opinions do not incite violence or hatred.

Horizontal Application of Rights: The Court recognized that the concept of “right to life” under Article 21 has evolved to include rights to privacy, dignity, and the right to be forgotten. This evolution extends the obligation of the state to protect individuals from violations by non-state actors, acknowledging the significant roles that private entities play in the public sphere.

State’s Obligation: The Court clarified that the state has an affirmative duty to safeguard individuals’ rights against violations, whether those violations are enacted by state or private actors. This duty arises from the state’s role as the protector of fundamental rights, which extends beyond the boundaries of state action.

Dissenting Opinion (Justice B.V. Nagarathna):

Justice Nagarathna presented a partially dissenting opinion, wherein she stated:

Dignity as a Fundamental Right: She highlighted that dignity is a core aspect of Article 21 and cannot be compromised under the guise of free speech. Expressions that are derogatory or hateful do not deserve protection under Article 19(1)(a).

Misuse of Free Speech: The dissent emphasized that the case concerns the abuse of free expression rather than the need to balance conflicting rights. Expressions that insult or degrade individuals should not be protected.

No Justification Under Article 19(1)(a): Justice Nagarathna argued that statements aimed at assaulting a person’s dignity cannot be justified under the freedom of speech provisions and should be subject to restrictions, irrespective of the status of the speaker as a public official.

WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF THIS CASE :

The case of Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. has had a significant impact on the legal landscape in India regarding the balance between freedom of speech and personal dignity. Here are some key aspects of its impact:

1. Clarification of Fundamental Rights:

• The judgment provided a clearer understanding of how fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution interact. It emphasized that while freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it must be exercised responsibly, particularly in contexts where it may infringe on the dignity of others.

2. Guidance on Balancing Rights:

• The ruling laid down principles for balancing conflicting fundamental rights, particularly when they pertain to freedom of expression and personal dignity. This guidance is expected to influence future cases where these rights are in contention.

3. Expanded Interpretation of Dignity:

• The case reinforced the notion that dignity is a critical component of the right to life under Article 21. This interpretation supports the argument that any expression that undermines personal dignity—such as hate speech or derogatory remarks—may not be protected under the guise of free speech.

4. Horizontal Application of Rights:

• The acknowledgment of horizontal application of fundamental rights means that non-state actors can also be held accountable for violations of personal dignity. This could lead to increased scrutiny of actions by private individuals and organizations, fostering a more responsible exercise of speech in public and private domains.

5. State’s Role as Protector:

• The ruling underscored the state’s affirmative obligation to protect individuals from violations of their rights by private entities. This can lead to stronger legislative and policy measures aimed at safeguarding individual rights against non-state actors, contributing to a more robust framework for human rights protection.

6. Impact on Public Discourse:

• By affirming the importance of public officials’ rights to free speech, the case encourages open dialogue and debate in the public sphere. However, it also cautions that such expressions must not compromise the dignity of individuals, thus fostering a culture of respectful discourse.

7. Judicial Precedent:

• The judgment serves as a critical judicial precedent for future cases, guiding lower courts in similar matters. It may influence the outcomes of cases involving defamation, hate speech, and the responsibilities of public officials in exercising their rights.

8. Awareness and Legal Reforms:

• The case has sparked discussions about the need for reforms in laws related to hate speech and defamation, prompting legal scholars, practitioners, and lawmakers to consider how existing frameworks can be improved to better protect personal dignity while respecting freedom of expression.

Conclusion:

Overall, the Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. The case has contributed to the ongoing discourse around fundamental rights in India, emphasizing the need for a careful balance between protecting freedom of speech and upholding individual dignity. The ruling has set a framework for addressing conflicts between these rights, with implications for future legal interpretations and societal norms.