only when his opinion gets translated into action and such action results in injury or harm or loss that an action in tort will lie.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 113 OF 2016

KAUSHAL KISHOR                                             … PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION @ (DIARY) NO. 34629 OF 2017

J U D G M E N T

V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

3. Thereafter,   the   Constitution   Bench,   by   an   order   dated

24.10.2019, formulated the following five questions to be decided by

this Court:­

“…1)   Are   the   grounds   specified   in   Article   19(2)   in

relation to which reasonable restrictions on the right

to free speech can be imposed by law, exhaustive, or

can restrictions on the right to free speech be imposed

on grounds not found in Article 19(2) by invoking other

fundamental rights? 

2) Can a fundamental right under Article 19 or 21 of

the Constitution of India be claimed other than against

the ‘State’ or its instrumentalities? 

3) Whether the State is under a duty to affirmatively

protect the rights of a citizen under Article 21 of the

Constitution   of   India   even   against   a   threat   to   the

liberty of a citizen by the acts or omissions of another

citizen or private agency? 

4) Can a statement made by a Minister, traceable to

any affairs of State or for protecting the Government,

be   attributed   vicariously   to   the   Government   itself,

especially   in   view   of   the   principle   of   Collective

Responsibility? 

5) Whether a statement  by a  Minister, inconsistent

with the rights of a citizen under Part Three of the

Constitution,   constitutes   a   violation   of   such

constitutional   rights   and   is   actionable   as

‘Constitutional Tort”? …”

.....

140.  Take for instance a case where a Minister makes a statement

that women are unfit to be employed in a particular avocation. It

158

may reflect his insensitivity to gender equality and also may expose

his low constitutional morality. The fact that due to his insensitivity

or lack of understanding or low constitutional morality, he speaks a

language that has the potential to demean the constitutional rights

of women, cannot be a ground for action in Constitutional tort.

Needless to say that no one can either be taxed or penalised for

holding   an   opinion   which   is   not   in   conformity   with   the

constitutional values. It is only when his opinion gets translated

into action and such action results in injury or harm or loss that an

action in tort will lie.