Satya Prakash
New Delhi, January 3
A statement made by a minister couldn’t be attributed vicariously to the government by applying the principle of collective responsibility, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.
No collective responsibility: Verdict
No one can be taxed or penalised for holding an opinion… It is only when the opinion gets translated into action and such action results in injury or harm or loss that an action in tort will lie. — Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian
Need for restraint: Dissenting view
Hate speech strikes at the foundational values of the Constitution. Public functionaries, including celebrities, are duty-bound to be more responsible and restrained in their speech. Justice BV Nagarathna
About the case
Bench was deciding if greater curbs could be imposed on the right to free speech of persons holding high officesMatter reached SC following a controversial statement made by UP ex-minister Azam Khan in gang rape case in 2016A similar statement derogatory to women was allegedly made by a Kerala minister in 2016-17 that led to litigation
By a majority of 4:1, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Justice S Abdul Nazeer said no greater restrictions could be imposed on free speech of public functionaries as the grounds for restricting free speech mentioned in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution were exhaustive. Justice Nazeer is to retire on Wednesday.
Justice BV Nagarathna, who delivered a dissenting verdict on demonetisation on Monday, differed again on several key issues with the majority view. “A statement made 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,” said the majority verdict by Justice Nazeer, Justice BR Gavai, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice V Ramasubramanian. Writing the verdict for the majority, Justice Ramasubramanian said, “A mere statement made by a minister, inconsistent with the rights of a citizen under Part-III of the Constitution, may not constitute a violation of the constitutional rights and become actionable as constitutional tort. But if as a consequence of such a statement, any act of omission or commission is done by the officers resulting in harm or loss to a person/citizen, then the same may be actionable as a constitutional tort.”
The top court rejected the suggestion that the PM or the CM should take appropriate action against the erring minister. “The PM or the CM does not have disciplinary control over the members of the council of ministers. It is true that in practice, a strong PM or CM will be able to drop any minister…. But in a country like ours where there is a multishy;-party system and where coalition governments are often formed, it is not possible… Governments that survive on wafershy;-thin majority sometimes have individual ministers who are strong enough to decide the very survival of such governments. This problem is not unique to our country,” read the majority judgment.
In her minority verdict, Justice Nagarathna said if a minister’s statements traceable to any affair of the state or made with a view to protect the government were disparaging or derogatory and represented not only the personal views of the individual minister making them, but also embodied the views of the government, then such statements could be attributed vicariously to the government itself, especially in view of the principle of collective responsibility.
The Constitution Bench was deciding if greater restrictions could be imposed on the right to free speech of ministers, MPs, MLAs and other persons holding high offices who often made statements that tend to violate fundamental rights of citizens.
The matter reached the top court following a controversial statement made by the then Uttar Pradesh Minister Azam Khan terming the alleged gang rape of a woman and her daughter in 2016 near Bulandshahr a political conspiracy and the family of the victim sought the case to be transferred to Delhi. There was a similar statement derogatory to women allegedly made by a Kerala Minister in 2016-17 that led to litigation in the state and finally landed up in the top court.
