The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that no additional restrictions can be put on Ministers, MPs and MLAs as they too enjoy equal freedom of speech like all under Article 19(2) of the Constitution
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that no additional restrictions can be put on Ministers, MPs and MLAs as they too enjoy equal freedom of speech like all under Article 19(2) of the Constitution
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice SA Nazeer also said that a Minister’s statement cannot be attributed “vicariously” to the government even when applying the principle of collective responsibility. In a separate, but concurring judgment, Justice BV Nagarathna said it is the duty of every Indian to ensure dignity and freedom of speech should not convert into hate speech.
“Statements made by a Minister even if traceable to any affairs of State or protecting the Government cannot be attributed vicariously to the Government even applying the principle of collective responsibility. Fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) can be exercised even against other instrumentalities other than the State,” said the bench, also comprising Justices BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian.
-
Justice Nagarathna agreed that greater restriction cannot be imposed on free speech, in addition to grounds under Article 19. She, however, said such statements can be vicariously attributed to the Government in case a minister makes disparaging statements in his “official capacity”.
-
“A mere statement by a Minister inconsistent with the rights of citizen does not form to be a constitutional tort but if it leads to omission or commission of offence by a public official, then it is a constitutional tort,” said the judgment, adding that “the right to freedom of speech and the restrictions can be exercised not only against the State but also against non-State actors”.
-
“The right can be exercised even against other instrumentalities other than the State. The State is under a duty to affirmatively protect the fundamental right of a citizen even if the violation is by a non-state actor,” the court held.
-
The SC was hearing a plea filed by a man whose wife and daughter were gangraped in July 2016 on a highway near Bulandshahr. He was seeking transfer of the case to Delhi and lodging of an FIR against then Uttar Pradesh Minister Azam Khan for his statement that the gang-rape case was a “political conspiracy”.
-
The judgment came on a question of whether restrictions can be imposed on a public functionary’s right to freedom of speech and expression. A three-judge bench had on October 5, 2017, referred to the Constitution bench various issues for adjudication, including whether a public functionary or a minister can claim freedom of speech while expressing views on sensitive matters.
-
The Constitution Bench, which reserved its verdict on November 15, had said people holding public offices should exercise self-restraint and not blabber things that are disparaging or insulting to other people in the country.
Source: Daily Pioneer
