grounds to restrict free speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution are exhaustive
the case of Kaushal Kishor versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors,, a five-judge Constitution bench unanimously held that grounds to restrict free speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution are exhaustive. The bench further held that under the guise of invoking other fundamental rights, additional restrictions not found in Article 19(2) could not be imposed on the exercise of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression by an individual under Article 19(1)(a).
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”? …”
.....
44. The series of decisions discussed above shows that whenever
two or more fundamental rights appeared either to be on a collision
course or to be seeking preference over one another, this Court has
dealt with the same by applying wellestablished legal tools.
Therefore, we are of the view that under the guise of invoking other
fundamental rights, additional restrictions, over and above those
prescribed in Article 19(2), cannot be imposed upon the exercise of
one’s fundamental rights.
45. In fine, we answer Question No.1 in the following manner:
“The grounds lined up in Article 19(2) for restricting the
right to free speech are exhaustive. Under the guise of
invoking other fundamental rights or under the guise of
two fundamental rights staking a competing claim against
each other, additional restrictions not found in Article
19(2), cannot be imposed on the exercise of the right
conferred by Article 19(1)(a) upon any individual.”