Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 113 of 2016
Facts
The case of Kaushal Kishor vs the State of Uttar Pradesh revolves around a harrowing incident on July 29, 2016, where a woman and her minor daughter were brutally gang-raped while traveling on National Highway 91 from Noida to Shahjahanpur to attend a relative’s funeral. The assailants also robbed the family of their valuables, including cash and jewellery. The following day, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including dacoity, robbery, gang rape, and wrongful confinement, along with relevant sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The case drew widespread attention due to a controversial statement made by Azam Khan, the then Urban Development Minister of Uttar Pradesh. In a press conference, Khan claimed that the incident was fabricated by opposition parties to tarnish the image of the state government ahead of elections, which sparked public outrage and extensive media coverage. Consequently, a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court (Crl. No. 113 of 2016), seeking judicial oversight to ensure a fair investigation, transfer the trial to a different state to avoid bias, and to register a formal complaint against Khan for his inflammatory remarks. The petitioner also sought the Court’s direction for adequate compensation and security for the victims and their family, underscoring the necessity for the judiciary to intervene and uphold justice, while addressing the misuse of freedom of speech by public officials.
Issues Raised
1. Scope of Article 19(2):
– Whether the grounds specified in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which allow for reasonable restrictions on the right to free speech, are exhaustive, or if additional restrictions can be imposed by invoking other fundamental rights.
2. Fundamental Rights Against Non-State Actors:
– Whether fundamental rights under Article 19 or Article 21 of the Constitution can be claimed against individuals or entities other than the State or its instrumentalities.
3. State’s Responsibility to Protect Citizen’s Rights:
– Whether the State is obligated to actively protect the rights of citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution against threats posed by actions or omissions of other citizens or private entities.
4. Ministerial Accountability:
– Whether a statement made by a Minister concerning state affairs or in defence of the government can be attributed vicariously to the government itself, particularly in the context of collective responsibility.
5. Minister’s Statement as Constitutional Tort:
– Whether a statement by a Minister that is inconsistent with the rights of a citizen under Part III of the Constitution constitutes a violation of those rights and is actionable as a ‘Constitutional Tort’.
Contentions
Petitioner’s Contentions:
- The petitioner asserted that the Minister’s derogatory statement has the potential to undermine the integrity of the ongoing investigation.
- They emphasized that such a statement could prejudice public opinion and affect the impartiality of judicial proceedings.
- This interference was argued to violate the victims’ right to a fair trial, which is a fundamental aspect of justice and due process.
- The petitioner claimed that the Minister’s remarks directly infringed upon the dignity of the victims.
- The statement was viewed as a breach of their fundamental rights, which are protected under constitutional law.
- These rights include the right to be treated with respect and to have their case heard without bias or prejudice.
- It was contended that the Minister’s statement, made in his official role, should be considered an act of the State.
- As an official act, it becomes subject to scrutiny under constitutional law, holding the State accountable for actions that could harm individuals’ rights.
- The petitioner argued that this made the statement actionable, warranting legal redress to uphold the victims’ constitutional protections.
Respondent’s Contentions:
- The respondents emphasized that Article 19(2) of the Constitution specifies the conditions under which free speech can be restricted.
- They argued that these grounds are explicitly listed and should not be broadened through judicial interpretation.
- According to the respondents, only the grounds enumerated in Article 19(2) can justify restrictions on free speech, ensuring clear and precise limitations.
- The respondents contended that fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution are designed to protect citizens from State actions, not from actions by private individuals.
- They argued that individuals cannot claim violations of fundamental rights by other private citizens.
- To impose obligations on the State to protect individuals from private infringements of these rights, legislative action is required, not judicial innovation.
- The respondents maintained that any extension of the State’s duty to protect fundamental rights from private actions must be established through legislation.
- They argued that the judiciary should not create new obligations or expand the scope of fundamental rights protections beyond what is legislated.
- This approach ensures that any new duties or restrictions are clearly defined and democratically enacted, preserving the separation of powers.
Rationale
The Court elaborated on the relationship between Articles 19 and 21 and carefully examined how the state should protect individual rights. While the concept of freedom of expression is essential, it is not absolute, and Article 19(2) has reasonable limitations. The court considered whether these restrictions are exhaustive or whether there are additional restrictions based on other fundamental rights, such as those set out in Article 21.The question raised before the court, whether fundamental rights should apply to non-state actors and not only for the government. We usually think of fundamental rights as protection against the government and its agencies, but this case forced the Supreme Court to consider whether these rights should also protect us against wrongdoings by private individuals or organizations. This could seriously shake up the way we view our constitutional rights. Furthermore, the Court considered the principle of collective responsibility and whether statements made by a Minister in their official capacity could be attributed to the government. This raised important questions about ministerial accountability and the extent to which the government can be held liable for the actions of its members.
Defects in the Law
- Protection Against Non-State Actors:
Current constitutional provisions primarily address violations of fundamental rights by the State, creating ambiguity when private actors infringe upon these rights. This gap underscores the necessity for clearer legal procedures to hold private parties accountable for such violations. Without explicit legislative action or judicial clarification, victims of private transgressions may lack adequate recourse, undermining the comprehensive protection of fundamental rights. To bridge this gap, it is essential to develop legal frameworks that delineate the responsibilities and liabilities of private individuals and entities, ensuring robust and equitable enforcement of constitutional rights for all citizens.
- Ministerial Accountability:
The absence of a legal mechanism to hold Ministers accountable for statements that may erode public confidence and justice raises significant concerns about executive checks and balances. This gap undermines the principles of accountability and transparency essential to democratic governance. Without appropriate measures to address such utterances, the potential for abuse of power increases, jeopardizing the safeguarding of citizens’ rights. Establishing clear legal frameworks to regulate and sanction harmful ministerial statements is crucial for maintaining public trust and ensuring that executive actions do not compromise justice or violate fundamental rights.
- Legislative v. Judicial Role:
The case underscores the tension between judicial interpretation and legislative action in the enhancement of fundamental rights. It highlights the need for legislative clarity in defining the State’s duty to protect individual rights from private infringements. While judicial interpretation can provide immediate relief, it often leads to inconsistencies and unpredictability. This case emphasizes that comprehensive legislative action is essential to establish clear and consistent guidelines, ensuring robust protection of fundamental rights and delineating the State’s responsibilities. Such clarity would bridge the gap between constitutional protections and practical enforcement, safeguarding citizens’ rights more effectively.
Inference
The Supreme Court’s reasoning in this case demonstrates the complexities of balancing free expression with other fundamental rights. It emphasises how important it is to have a thorough legal system that defends citizens’ rights in all situations, even when they are violated by private parties. The case raises the possibility that legislative changes will be required to close these loopholes and guarantee the strong protection of constitutional rights. It also highlights how crucial accountability systems are for keeping public servants trustworthy and enforcing the law. The Supreme Court considered the horizontal application of fundamental rights, specifically Articles 19 (Freedom of Speech) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution. The decision confirmed that these rights can be enforced against both persons and private entities, not just the state or its agents. The majority ruling, by a 4:1 margin, ruled that basic rights might have both vertical (against the state) and horizontal (against private individuals) consequences. This difference from previous decisions demonstrates a shifting judicial perspective on the extent of basic rights. While minority judgements emphasised the need of statutory recognition for horizontal application, the majority emphasised the need to adjust legal interpretations to current settings.
- DEVANSHI AGARWAL
- IFIM LAW SCHOOL