Author: HANSHIKA MOHAPATRA, a student at Xim University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
TO THE POINT
The Kaushal Kishore ruling is critically examined in this article, which also highlights its shortcomings and contradictions in terms of striking a balance between Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a) rights. In this case,Article 19(1)(a) restrictions on free expression are discussed. The Supreme Court decided that the reasons listed in Article 19(2) for limiting free speech are all-inclusive. It underlined that while the State may impose limits on expression that does not fall under these limitations, it may not impose any more restrictions than those outlined in Article 19(2).
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
Article 19(1)(a) and its relationship to Article 19(2), which allows reasonable restrictions on free speech, were discussed by the Court. It investigated the possibility of adding grounds for speech restrictions outside of those specified in Article 19(2). The ruling made it clear that although the State may restrict speech that is not protected by Article 19(1)(a), it is not permitted to do so in ways that go beyond those allowed by Article 19(2).
THE PROOF:
The court’s interpretation was centered on a few of precedents ROMESH THAPPAR VS STATE OF MADRAS and THALAPPALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED VS STATE OF KERALA which demonstrated that constraints on free speech must be consistent with the grounds listed in Article 19(2), which served as the foundation for the Court’s approach. There are well-defined limitations on the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) under Article 19(2). Therefore, any legislation that aims to restrict the right under Article 19(1)(a) must inevitably adhere to the restrictions outlined in Article 19(2). When two fundamental rights conflict, the Court will weigh the pros and cons to permit both to be meaningfully exercised. This dilemma is not new because there have been several interpretations and balances of the rights under Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a).
ABSTRACT
In this instance, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that a public official’s freedom of speech could not be curtailed to protect the basic rights of another person. The State is obligated to defend the right to life and personal freedom from non-state actors, the Court further said.
This issue arose from two incidents in which ministers made divisive statements about crime victims. These statements, according to the victims, infringed upon their Article 21 right to life and personal liberty. Only the list of reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(2) of the constitution might restrict the Right to Freedom of speech and expression, the court ruled in a 4:1 ruling.The Court ruled that these were the only grounds and that no more limits could be placed. This decision also concerned the horizontal application of rights to both state and non-state entities.In recent decades, the Court ruled, the “right to life” has expanded to encompass human dignity, the right to privacy, and the right to be forgotten. The State has a proactive obligation to provide protection against infringement of the right to life against non-state actors, given their numerous important functions in all areas of life.
CASE SUMMARY
Facts
- The court consolidated two different lawsuits containing insulting remarks made by Kerala and Uttar Pradesh state governments. Regarding the balance between freedom of speech and the fundamental rights to life and dignity, the matter at hand concerns two occasions in which ministers’ statements generated important constitutional issues. The Supreme Court took these problems into consideration as a result of these instances.
- A minister in Uttar Pradesh made disrespectful remarks about two victims of sexual assault. He said that the sexual assault of a woman and her little child was a ‘political scandal’ against the administration.
In the second case, a Kerala government minister made comments that were ‘very disrespectful to women’. Both petitions contended that public officials violated the right to dignity provided by Article 21 of the Constitution. The two petitions were heard by all three Supreme Court Justices and petitions raised serious legal problems about constitutional interpretation and the matter was then considered by the court’s five-judge panel.
Issues
A) Can the right to free speech under Article 19 (1) (a) be limited to protect the dignity of a person as guaranteed by Article 21?
B) Does the State have a duty to protect individuals’ rights under Article 21 against non-State actors?
Decision
The Court ruled 4:1 that an individual’s right to free speech and expression cannot be curtailed if it violates the dignity of another individual. The Court delivered two opinions: one by majority and one by dissent, written by Justice BV Nagarathna.
The Court ruled that when two or more fundamental rights conflict, it must strike a balance or prioritize one over the other. The Court cited Article 19(2) of the Constitution as grounds for curbing freedom of speech and expression and also ruled that the list was thorough and that no further grounds could be added to impose further limits. The court concluded that a public functionary’s right to free expression cannot be limited to protect an individual’s dignity.
The application of fundamental rights to both state and non-state actors was the subject of the majority ruling. The concepts of “right to life” and “personal liberty” in Article 21 now include Privacy, dignity, and the right to be forgotten. Human rights can now be impacted by non-state actors as science and technology become increasingly interconnected.The State has an obligation to defend people’s lives and personal freedoms from private individuals, the Court ruled. In a partly dissenting opinion, Justice Nagarathna said that dignity is fundamental to the rights granted by Article 21 of the Constitution. Under Article 21 the rights cannot be restricted under Article 19(1)(a).The speech in this case could not be protected under Article 19(1)(a) due to its disparaging, insulting, and hateful nature. She ruled that this issue did not involve balancing two basic rights, but rather an abuse of free speech to undermine an individual’s fundamental rights.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court ruled that the restrictions on free speech imposed by Article 19(2) are extensive. The Court also determined that Articles 19 and 21 are enforceable against non-state corporations, and it put a duty on the state to defend people’ lives and liberty. The idea that the right to free expression is essential, and any limits must be narrowly limited to the precise grounds mentioned in Article 19(2). This ruling protects against arbitrary restrictions on free expression by ensuring that the State’s ability to regulate speech is utilized within constitutional limits.Lastly, the Supreme Court determined that ministerial utterances infringing citizens’ rights are not enforceable under constitutional tort unless they inflict substantial harm.
FAQ
1. What was the Supreme Court’s opinion on Article 19(2) in the Kaushal Kishore case? The Supreme Court ruled that the grounds for regulating free speech under Article 19(2) are exhaustive, and that no additional restrictions can be imposed, even when basic rights clash.
2. Can the State place restrictions on free expression that are not stated in Article 19(2)? No, the state is not permitted to impose restrictions beyond those specified in Article 19(2) of the Constitution that prevents the state from implementing any legislation that deprives or limits the fundamental liberties protected by the Constitution’s Part III. Any law enacted in violation of this article is null to the extent of the breach.
