{"id":80754,"date":"2023-01-03T00:36:56","date_gmt":"2023-01-03T04:36:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/?p=80754"},"modified":"2023-01-03T23:38:49","modified_gmt":"2023-01-04T03:38:49","slug":"state-not-vicariously-liable-for-hurtful-statements-of-ministers-no-need-for-greater-restrictions-on-ministers-right-to-free-speech-rules-indian-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/?p=80754","title":{"rendered":"State not vicariously liable for hurtful statements of Ministers; no need for greater restrictions on Ministers’ right to free speech rules Indian Supreme Court."},"content":{"rendered":"


\nBY KRISHNADAS RAJAGOPAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court on January 3, 2023 held there is no reason to impose \u201cadditional restrictions\u201d on the right to free speech of Ministers, and the government is not vicariously liable for disparaging remarks made by them, even if the comments are traceable to state affairs or meant to protect the government.<\/p>\n

\u201cA statement by a Minister, even if traceable to any affairs of the state or for protecting the government, cannot be attributed vicariously to the government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility,\u201d Justice V. Ramasubramanian held in the main judgment of the Constitution Bench. The judgment was endorsed by Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna on the Bench.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt 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\u2026 The Prime Minister or the Chief Minister does not have disciplinary control over the members of the Council of Ministers… in a country like ours, where there is a multi\u00ad-party system and where coalition Governments are often formed, it is not possible at all times for a Prime Minister\/Chief Minister to take the whip whenever a statement is made by someone in the Council of Ministers,\u201d Justice Ramasubramanian observed.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In a separate opinion, Justice Nagarathna differed with the leading judgment on the point, saying a Minister\u2019s statement, if traceable to any affairs of the State or for protecting the government, can be attributed vicariously to the government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility, \u201cso long as such statement represented the view of the government too\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf such a statement is not consistent with the view of the government, then it is attributable to the Minister personally,\u201d Justice Nagarathna drew the distinction.<\/p>\n

Justice Ramasubramanian said the \u201creasonable restrictions\u201d on free speech for citizens, including Ministers and public functionaries, were \u201cexhaustive\u201d. Besides, the state has an affirmative duty to protect when there is a threat to personal liberty, even by a non\u00ad-State actor. The fundamental right to free speech and right to dignity could be enforced against private parties. There was no need to bring in further shackles on free speech in the guise of protecting the \u201ccompeting\u201d fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of persons at the receiving end of a Minister\u2019s comments, the judgment said.<\/p>\n

But Justice Nagarathna said a derogatory speech which closely resembled hate speech did not fall within the ambit of the free speech right.<\/p>\n

\u201cPublic functionaries and other persons of influence and celebrities, having regard to their reach, real or apparent authority and the impact they wield on the public\u2026 owe a duty to the citizenry at large to be more responsible and restrained in their speech. They are required to understand and measure their words… Therefore, when such speech has the effect of infringing the fundamental right under Article 21 of another individual, it would not constitute a case which requires balancing of conflicting rights,\u201d Justice Nagarathna observed.<\/p>\n

Justice Nagarathna said hate speech struck at the foundational values and violated the fraternity of citizens from diverse backgrounds.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Preamble of the Constitution which envisages, inter alia, fraternity, assures that the dignity of individuals cannot be dented by means of unwarranted speech being made by fellow citizens, including public functionaries,\u201d she noted.<\/p>\n

Justice Ramasubramanian further held that a statement made by a Minister inconsistent with the rights of a citizen may not constitute a violation of constitutional rights of the latter and become actionable as a \u201cconstitutional tort\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cNo 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,\u201d Justice Ramasubramanian explained.<\/p>\n

A \u2018constitutional tort\u2019 is a violation of one\u2019s constitutional rights, particularly fundamental rights, by an agent of the government, acting in his\/her official capacity. A court of law can award monetary compensation to the victim in such a case.<\/p>\n

Justice Nagarathna said a \u201cproper legal framework\u201d was necessary before taking action as a constitutional tort. She said the Parliament could enact a legislation or code to restrain citizens in general and public functionaries in particular from making disparaging or vitriolic remarks against fellow citizens. Likewise, political parties could come up with a code of conduct to regulate and control the actions and speech of their functionaries and members.
\n
\nCOURTESY:THE HINDU<\/em><\/p>\n

Tweet<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

BY KRISHNADAS RAJAGOPAL The Supreme Court on January 3, 2023 held there is no reason to impose \u201cadditional restrictions\u201d on the right to free speech of Ministers, and the government is not vicariously liable for disparaging remarks made by them, even if the comments are traceable to state affairs or meant to protect the government. …<\/p>\n

Continue reading ‘State not vicariously liable for hurtful statements of Ministers; no need for greater restrictions on Ministers’ right to free speech rules Indian Supreme Court.’ »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[12],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80754"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=80754"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80754\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":80755,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80754\/revisions\/80755"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=80754"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=80754"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=80754"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}