It is not possible to extend this concept of collective responsibility to any and every statement orally made by a Minister outside the House of the People/Legislative Assembly.

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”? …”

 

.....

 125.    In  State   (NCT   of   Delhi)  vs.  Union   of   India111,   the

Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   was   concerned   with   the

interpretation of Article 239AA of the Constitution. The concept of

collective responsibility was dealt with extensively by Dipak Misra,

C.J., as he then was, from paragraphs 82 to 85. In his independent

but concurring opinion Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. also dealt with

the   question   of   collective   responsibility   from   paragraphs   318

onwards.

126.    What   follows   from   the   above   discussion   is,  (i)  that   the

concept of collective responsibility is essentially a political concept;

(ii)  that   the   collective   responsibility   is   that   of   the   Council   of

Ministers; and (iii) that such collective responsibility is to the House

of the People/Legislative Assembly of the State. Generally, such

responsibility correlates to (i) the decisions taken; and (ii) the acts

of omission and commission done. It is not possible to extend this

111(2018) 8 SCC 501

150

concept of collective responsibility to any and every statement orally

made by a Minister outside the House of the People/Legislative

Assembly.