Kaushal Kishore vs State of UP (2023) - Case Analysis

Introduction of Kaushal Kishore vs State of UP (2023)

Kaushal Kishore vs State of UP (2023) revolves around the constitutional scrutiny of remarks made by Ministers which raised significant questions about the limits of freedom of speech and its impact on the fundamental rights to life and dignity. The case arose from controversial statements made by Azam Khan, a former Minister in Uttar Pradesh, about the Bulandshahr gang-rape incident and remarks made by a Minister in Kerala regarding women. These comments led to petitions challenging the violation of the rights of victims. The Supreme Court in its 4:1 verdict held that the right to freedom of speech and expression of an individual could not be restricted for violating the dignity of another individual.

Download Kaushal Kishore vs State of UP (2023) PDF

Historical Context and Facts of Kaushal Kishore vs State of UP (2023)

The case at hand involves two instances where remarks made by Ministers raised significant constitutional questions about the balance between freedom of speech and the fundamental rights to life and dignity. These incidents resulted in the consideration of these issues before the Supreme Court. The following are the brief facts of the case -

Background of Incident involving Azam Khan

A writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed by the Petitioner who was a victim of the Bulandshahr gang-rape incident. It was alleged that his family was attacked by robbers on National Highway 91 and his wife and 13-year-old daughter were brutally gang-raped.

Controversial Remarks by Azam Khan

The former Minister for Urban Development in Uttar Pradesh, Azam Khan claimed that the incident was a ‘political conspiracy’ by opposition parties to defame his government during a press conference.

Legal Challenge

The Petitioner contended that the remarks by the Minister - 

• disrespected the victims
• compromised the fairness of the investigation
• infringed their fundamental rights

Thus, the Petitioner sought judicial intervention to uphold justice.

Background of Incident involving Kerala Minister

Similarly in Kerala where derogatory remarks were made by the Minister for Electricity about women.

Petitions Filed

The Petitioner filed two Public Interest writ petitions:

• seeking action against the Minister for violating his constitutional oath
• requesting disciplinary action for his derogatory remarks

Decision of the High Court

The Petition was dismissed by the High Court of Kerala. The Court stated that framing a code of conduct for Ministers or directing the Chief Minister to act was outside the purview of Judiciary.

Referral to the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court

The questions raised in both Petitions were similar; they were clubbed and heard together by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.

The main questions which were addressed in this case were - 

• Are the grounds under Article 19(2) exhaustive reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression or can the other fundamental rights restrict the freedom of speech and expression?
• Can fundamental rights Article 19 and 21 be actionable against non-state entities for infringing it?
• Does the state have an obligation to protect Article 21 of the citizen against acts and omissions of private entities?
• Can a government be vicariously liable for a statement made by a minister related to affairs of the state considering the principle of collective responsibility? 
• Is it actionable under constitutional torts if the statement by a minister infringes on the fundamental rights of the citizens?

Legal Provisions involved in Kaushal Kishore vs State of UP (2023)

In Kaushal Kishore Case Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India played a significant role. The following are the legal analysis of these provisions -

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution

Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)): Citizens can express opinions freely with reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) for state security, public order, decency and more.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

Article 21 deals with protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Judgment and Impact of Kaushal Kishore vs State of UP (2023)

In the Kaushal Kishore Case five important legal issues related to the misuse of free speech and its impact on fundamental rights were addressed by the 5-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abdul Nazeer, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice B.V. Nagarathna.

The Supreme Court held that the grounds for restricting freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) are exhaustive and no further restrictions can be imposed even in situations where fundamental rights conflict with one another. The Court also held that Article 19 and Article 21 are enforceable against non-state entities.

The Bench imposed an obligation on the state to safeguard the life and liberty of the citizens from violations by private entities. 

The majority regarding vicarious liability held that the government cannot be held vicariously liable for statements made by a Minister related to the affairs of the State unless they align with the government’s official position.

Lastly, the Bench concluded that statements made by a Minister that violates the fundamental rights of the citizens are not actionable under constitutional tort unless they result in actual harm or loss. Remedies for such remarks may be sought by invoking the principle of collective responsibility if tangible harm occurs. 

Thus, the Supreme Court in a 4:1 judgement held that the right to freedom of speech and expression of an individual could not be restricted for violating the dignity of another individual.

Conclusion

In Kaushal Kishore vs State of UP (2023) the Supreme Court held that the restrictions on freedom of speech under Article 19(2) are exhaustive. The Court also held that Article 19 and Article 21 are enforceable against non-state entities and imposed a duty on the state to protect the life and liberty of the citizens. Lastly, the Supreme Court concluded that ministerial statements violating the rights of the citizen are not actionable under constitutional tort unless they cause actual harm.