Even when the doctrine of collective responsibility is applied, a minister's remarks, including those of MLAs and MPs, cannot be vicariously attributed to the government, the Supreme Court ruled.
The decision was made by a five-judge Constitution bench, led by Justice S. A. Nazeer and including Justices B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B. V. Nagarathna. The Central government's decision to demonetize the Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000 notes had been upheld the day before by the same bench.
It stated that only the restrictions listed in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which comes after Article 19, may be placed on free speech.
According to LiveLaw, the 2016 Bulandshahar rape incident is the subject of the case Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh. At the time, Azam Khan, then-minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh and leader of the Samajwadi Party, called the incident a "political conspiracy and nothing else."
The survivors then requested action against Khan in a writ petition to the Apex Court. The Court ordered him to submit an unequivocal apology, which he did, but also noted that the case raises important questions about state responsibility and freedom of speech. On the subject, several questions were put forth.
According to LiveLaw, a crucial question, in this case, was "whether limitations can be imposed on a public functionary's right to freedom of speech and expression."
“A statement made by a minister even if traceable to any affairs of the state or for protection of the government cannot be attributed vicariously to the government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility,” the majority ruled.
Additionally, it stated that while citizens had the right to petition the Court for violations of Articles 19 (freedom of expression) and 21 (right to life), a statement made by the Minister that violated those rights might not be actionable on its own. However, if it results in an offence being committed by a public official, there may be recourse available.
In a separate ruling, Justice B V Nagarathna stated that the right to free speech and expression is crucial for ensuring that the public is well-informed and educated about governance. She also authored the dissenting opinion in the case on Monday that was intended to determine whether the central government followed the correct steps when implementing demonetization in 2016.
She wrote that additional restrictions on speech are not necessary in the case involving the restriction of free speech, agreeing in part with the majority judgement. However, she pointed out that common law remedies are available to address those issues. Hate speech attacks citizens from diverse backgrounds and undermines society's fundamental values, especially "in a country like us that is 'Bharat,'" she said. It is up to Parliament to decide whether to enact new rules or laws, she said.
She disagreed with one of the questions posed, regarding statements made by a Minister that can be linked to government affairs, and claimed that these statements can be linked to the government indirectly or by association. She wrote that she believed the government was vicariously liable if the statements were derogatory.
The Union was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Attorney General R. Venkataramani. They contended that the matter under discussion by the bench was largely academic and extremely abstract and that Parliament would be responsible for drafting any necessary legislation to address instances of hate speech or other types of remarks.
For more on?explainers,?news, and current affairs from around the world, please visit?Indiatimes News.