Facts of the Case
On 29 July 2016, KaushalKishor [1]His family was traveling from Noida to Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, to attend a relative’s funeral. On National Highway-91, armed assailants intercepted their vehicle, looted cash and jewelry, and gang-raped the petitioner’s wife and minor daughter. The next day, an FIR was lodged with the U.P. Police under Sections 395, 397, and 376-D of the Indian Penal Code, along with provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The incident received widespread media attention and provoked nationwide outrage, highlighting grave concerns about safety on public highways and the vulnerability of women and children to violent crimes.
Subsequently, the Uttar Pradesh Urban Development Minister publicly dismissed the incident as a “political conspiracy.” Such remarks raised serious apprehensions that they could prejudice the investigation, intimidate witnesses, and undermine victims’ confidence in the justice system. Aggrieved, Kaushal Kishor filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court on January 15, 2023, seeking the transfer of the investigation and trial to a neutral jurisdiction and disciplinary action against the Minister for making prejudicial statements.
A similar issue arose in Kerala, where writ petitions challenged derogatory statements made by the then Electricity Minister. The Kerala High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that such matters pertained to morality and political accountability, beyond judicial intervention. Both cases involved ministerial statements that potentially prejudiced investigations and infringed upon victims’ fundamental rights. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases to examine the constitutional implications of such statements, particularly regarding citizens’ rights to life, dignity, due process, and access to justice, and to clarify the extent of State accountability.
Issues of the Case
- Whether restrictions under Article 19(2) are the only limits to free speech, or whether other fundamental rights, such as Articles 14, 21, and 22, can also impose constraints.
- Whether fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22[2] They are enforceable against both private individuals and the State.
- Whether the State has a constitutional duty to protect citizens’ fundamental rights from violations committed by private actors.
- Whether statements made by Ministers regarding government affairs can be considered statements of the Government under Article 12 and the principle of collective responsibility (where Ministers are jointly accountable for official actions).
- Whether such statements, if they violate fundamental rights, constitute a “constitutional tort” (a State wrong arising from the breach of constitutional duties).
- Whether prejudicial statements by Ministers, indirectly affecting investigation integrity, procedural fairness, or public trust, can be reviewed by the judiciary to protect fundamental rights.
Contentions of Both Sides
Petitioner’s Contentions
The petitioner contended that the Minister’s statement branding the crime as a “political conspiracy” could prejudice the investigation, obstruct justice, and erode public confidence.[3] He argued that such remarks directly undermined the victims’ dignity and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22.[4] Which guarantee equality, freedom of expression subject to reasonable restrictions, protection of life and liberty, and procedural fairness. The State, he submitted, has a positive constitutional duty not only to refrain from infringing rights but also to protect citizens from violations by private actors. Further, statements made by Ministers in their official capacity must be treated as government action under Article 12,[5] And any infringement of rights through such statements amounts to a constitutional tort. Accordingly, the petitioner sought transfer of the investigation and trial to a neutral jurisdiction and disciplinary action against the Minister.
State’s Contentions
The State argued that the Minister’s remarks represented political opinion rather than official government action, and therefore could not be equated with State action under Article 12.[6] Freedom of speech under Article 19 protects political and public commentary, and such remarks cannot automatically be treated as violations of fundamental rights.[7] The State further emphasized that criminal proceedings were already in progress, rendering transfer unnecessary. With respect to the Kerala matter, the State maintained that statements concerning morality or public issues fall within the realm of political accountability and not judicial review.[8] Importantly, while the State did not dispute the occurrence of the crime itself, its defense was limited to asserting that the Minister’s statement fell within the ambit of free speech and could not be construed as unconstitutional. Additionally, the State contended that the Minister was not acting in an official capacity, so Article 12 and the doctrine of collective responsibility did not apply in this instance.
Rationale of the Court
The Supreme Court emphasized that Articles 19, 21, and 22 [9]not only protect against State action but also impose positive duties, requiring the State to safeguard citizens from violations by private actors. Ministerial statements concerning government affairs cannot be dismissed as personal opinions. Under Article 12 and the doctrine of collective responsibility, such statements are attributable to the Government. If they harm citizens’ rights, dignity, or procedural fairness, they constitute a constitutional tort, making the State liable.
The Court clarified that freedom of speech is not absolute. Statements that infringe fundamental rights, obstruct justice, or diminish public trust fall outside Article 19 protections. Public remarks by senior Ministers dismissing serious crimes can erode confidence in the legal system, intimidate witnesses, and compromise victims’ rights—even without direct physical interference.
The State bears dual responsibility; it must protect citizens from direct threats like criminal acts and indirect threats like prejudicial statements by officials. Ministerial remarks labeling crimes as conspiracies, even if politically motivated, can influence ongoing investigations, affect witness testimony, and harm victims’ reputations. By linking this reasoning to Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)[10] (proactive State duty to prevent violations of women’s rights), State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997)[11] (recognition of constitutional torts), and Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985)[12] (reasonable restrictions on speech), The Court held that ministerial statements undermining justice or intimidating victims are actionable. The Kerala High Court’s narrow approach was contrasted to emphasize judicial oversight where fundamental rights are threatened.
The Court also clarified that accountability applies to all government representatives. Ministers cannot evade responsibility for statements in their official capacity. Judicial review or disciplinary proceedings may apply. While political discourse is essential, it cannot compromise constitutional obligations, infringe on citizens’ rights, or obstruct justice. Article 22 protections, including due process, must be respected even when infringements are indirect, caused by public statements affecting victims’ rights or procedural fairness.
Defects of Law
This case revealed systemic gaps:
- Ambiguity in Ministerial Accountability: Existing laws do not clearly define when ministerial statements constitute government action or a constitutional tort[13].
- Limited Protection Against Private Threats: Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22 protect rights, but proactive safeguards against private actors remain underdeveloped.[14]
- Weak Guidelines on Prejudicial Statements: No statutory mechanism prevents officials from making statements that could influence investigations, judicial proceedings, or public opinion.[15]
- Insufficient Remedies for Victims: Legal remedies for harm caused by official statements or inaction remain limited, particularly regarding dignity, mental health, emotional, reputational, or procedural impacts.[16]
- Unclear Boundaries of Free Speech: Freedom of speech lacks precise limits where it conflicts with citizens’ rights, leading to inconsistent judicial outcomes.[17]
Concrete Improvements
- Enact statutory provisions defining ministerial accountability for statements affecting fundamental rights.
- Amend the Ministers’ Code of Conduct to include clear prohibitions on prejudicial statements, with disciplinary sanctions and oversight by an Ethics Committee.
- Establish judicial remedies, including interim protective orders, injunctions, or compensation under constitutional tort jurisprudence.
- Include mandatory support mechanisms for victims affected by indirect harms.[18]
- Issue judicial guidelines to balance political speech with citizens’ rights, ensuring statements do not obstruct justice or undermine public trust.
Inference
The case confirms that Ministers and State representatives cannot act or speak in ways that undermine citizens’ fundamental rights. Statements made in an official capacity incur legal and constitutional accountability, and violations may constitute a constitutional tort. Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22[19] impose both negative duties (to refrain from violating rights) and positive obligations (to actively protect citizens from harm, including private threats, witness intimidation, and procedural interference).
The ruling balances freedom of speech with citizens’ dignity, due process, and access to justice. Political discourse, though essential, cannot justify remarks that prejudice justice or compromise fundamental rights. Recognizing indirect harm caused by public statements reinforces State accountability, strengthens public trust, and protects vulnerable victims. Legislative clarity, preventive measures, and remedies ensure political statements align with citizens’ rights and procedural integrity.
Conclusion
KaushalKishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) reinforces State accountability, ministerial responsibility, and constitutional torts. Freedom of speech is subject to the protection of citizens’ rights, dignity, and due process, and the State must actively prevent violations by officials and private actors. The judgment sets a precedent for situations where ministerial statements intersect with citizens’ fundamental rights, balancing democratic freedoms, victim protection, and public trust, while ensuring proactive protection against both direct and indirect harms.
[1] Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).
[3] Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 4 S.C.C. 1 (India).
[4] Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 S.C.C. 241 (India).
[5] Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 S.C.C. 746 (India).
[6] Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 4 S.C.C. 1 (India).
[7] S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 S.C.C. 574 (India).
[8] State of Kerala v. K. Ajith, (2021) 11 S.C.C. 1 (India).
[9] Constitution of India art. 12, 14, 19, 21, 22 (India)
[10] Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 S.C.C. 241 (India).
[11] State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla, (1997) 2 S.C.C. 83 (India).
[12] Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, (1985) 1 S.C.C. 641 (India).
[14] Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 S.C.C. 241 (India); Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 S.C.C. 746 (India)
[15] P.C. Sen, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1821 (India); Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI, (2012) 10 S.C.C. 603 (India)
[16] Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 S.C.C. 746 (India); M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 S.C.C. 395 (India)
[17] S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 S.C.C. 574 (India); Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, (1950) S.C.R. 594 (India)
[18] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 S.C.C. 395 (India)
[19] Constitution of India art. 12, 14, 19, 21, 22 (India).
SUBMITTED BY: POOJA CHOUDHARY
4th Year/BA.LL.B(HONS.)
QUANTUM UNIVERSITY, ROORKEE