SC verdict on MPs, MLAs’ right to freedom of speech: What the ruling says
Context- The case, Kaushal Kishor v the State of Uttar Pradesh, relates to the Bulandshahar rape incident of 2016, in which the then Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh and Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan termed the incident a ‘political conspiracy and nothing else’.
The survivors then filed a writ petition before the Apex Court seeking action against Khan. While directing him to submit an unconditional apology, which he did, the Court also noted that the case raises serious concerns regarding state obligation and freedom of speech and expression.
What is the Judgement?
- A statement made by a minister, including MLAs and MPs, cannot be attributed vicariously to the government even when applying the principle of collective responsibility.
- It said no additional restrictions against free speech can be imposed except those mentioned under Article 19(2) of the Constitution
What does the judgment say about free speech restrictions?
- Whether restrictions can be imposed on a public functionary’s right to freedom of speech and expression?
- A statement made by a minister even if traceable to any affairs of the state or for protection of the government cannot be attributed vicariously to the government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility,” the majority ruled.
- Further, it said while citizens had the right to petition the Court for violations of Article 19 (freedom of expression) and Article 21 (right to life), a statement made by the Minister, inconsistent with the rights of the citizens, may not by itself be actionable
- But if it leads to omission or commission of offence by a public official, then remedies can be sought against it.
What does the dissenting opinion say?
- Justice B V Nagarathna wrote a separate judgment and said freedom of speech and expression is a much-needed right so that citizens are well informed and educated on governance.
- She agreed in part with the majority judgment, writing that further restrictions need not be placed on speech.
- Hate speech strikes at the foundational values by making society unequal and also attacks citizens from diverse backgrounds, especially “in a country like us that is ‘Bharat’”, she said, but noted common law remedies are present to address those issues.
- Creating another set of guidelines or laws is a matter for Parliament to deliberate, she said
- She dissented on one of the questions framed, on statements made by a Minister which are traceable to affairs of government, and said that such statements are vicariously or by association attributable to the government.
What union government argued?
Attorney-General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union. They argued that the issue being considered by the bench was largely academic and very abstract, and the possibility of a law being drafted to deal with areas of hate speech or other kinds of remarks, if needed, would be the responsibility of Parliament.
What is 19(1)(a) of the Constitution?
Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression, provides every citizen with the right to express one’s views, opinions, beliefs, and convictions freely by word of mouth, writing, printing, picturing or in any other manner.
Article 19(2) confers the right on the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the freedom of speech and expression on the grounds of,
- Sovereignty and integrity of India,
- Security of the state,
- Friendly relations with foreign states,
- Public order, decency or morality,
- Contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence.
Conclusion – Supreme Court affirmed the importance of freedom of speech and expression by highlighting that right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) can only be curbed on the grounds mentioned in 19(2) and not otherwise.
Source – Indian Express
NEWS- SC verdict on MPs, MLAs’ right to freedom of speech: What the ruling says
Syllabus- GS-2; Fundamental Rights
