Statement Made by Minister Cannot Be Attributed “Vicariously” to Government: SC

GG News Bureau

New Delhi, 3rd Jan. Even when applying the principle of collective responsibility, a minister’s statement cannot be attributed “vicariously” to the government, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, adding that there can be no additional restrictions on freedom of speech for public functionaries.

A five-judge Constitution bench led by Justice S A Nazeer ruled that no additional restrictions on a public functionary’s right to free speech and expression can be imposed beyond those specified in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

“Statement made by a minister even if traceable to any affairs of state or protecting the government cannot be attributed vicariously to the government even applying the principle of collective responsibility.

“Fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) can be exercised even against other instrumentalities other than the state,” the bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, said.

Justice B V Nagarathna, who was also on the bench, agreed that greater restrictions on free speech cannot be imposed in addition to the grounds set out in Article 19.

She did, however, say that if a minister makes disparaging remarks in his “official capacity,” such statements can be vicariously attributed to the government.

Hate speech, according to Justice Nagarathna, undermines fundamental values by making society unequal and also targets citizens from diverse backgrounds, particularly “in a country like ours that is ‘Bharat.'”

She stated that freedom of speech and expression is a vital right for citizens to be well informed and educated about governance.

The court was hearing a plea from a man whose wife and daughter were allegedly gang-raped on a highway near Bulandshahr in July 2016. He was seeking transfer of the case to Delhi and lodging of a FIR against then Uttar Pradesh minister Azam Khan for his controversial statement that the gang-rape case was a “political conspiracy”.

The decision addressed whether restrictions on a public official’s right to free speech and expression can be imposed.

The Supreme Court, which reserved its decision on November 15, stated that people in public positions should exercise restraint and refrain from saying things that are disparaging or insulting to other people in the country.

The Supreme Court stated that this approach is part of our constitutional culture and that there is no need for it to develop a code of conduct for public officials.

The court noted that, regardless of what Article 19(2) says, the country has a constitutional culture in which there is an inherent limitation or restriction on what people in positions of responsibility say.

Article 19(2) refers to the State’s authority to enact laws imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to free expression and expression in the interests of the country’s sovereignty and integrity, public order, decency, morality, and more.

On October 5, 2017, a three-judge bench referred various issues to the Constitution bench for adjudication, including whether a public functionary or minister can claim freedom of speech while expressing views on sensitive issues.

There was a need for an authoritative statement on the issue because there were arguments that a minister cannot take a personal stance and that his statements must be consistent with government policy.