Constitutional Law / Horizontal Rights & Ministerial Accountability Decided January 3, 2023

Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Official Law Report Citations (2023) 4 SCC 1 | 2023 INSC 4 | [2023] 8 SCR 581 | AIR 2023 SC 720

Bench Composition / Coram 5-Judge Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. (Majority by Ramasubramanian, J.; Separate Opinion by Nagarathna, J.)

Statutory Mappings: Article 19(2) Exhaustive Articles 19 & 21 Horizontal Application Articles 75(3) & 164(2) Collective Responsibility Constitutional Tort BNS 2023 Sec 196, 352 & 356

Precedential Crux & Golden Rule:

A 5-Judge Constitution Bench ruled that fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced horizontally against private individuals and non-state entities. Held that grounds for restricting free speech under Article 19(2) are strictly exhaustive and cannot be expanded by judicial fiat; determined that an individual Minister's statement cannot be vicariously attributed to the Council of Ministers under Collective Responsibility; and declared that a mere verbal statement does not constitute an actionable Constitutional Tort unless it causes a consequential actionable injury.

Official Supreme Court Judgment Record Certified Copy

Complete 5-Judge Constitution Bench certified record (8.29 MB), majority and concurring opinions, and horizontal rights jurisprudence.

Download PDF

1. Comprehensive Factual Matrix & Procedural Trajectory

The constitutional reference in Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh arose from a highway ambush and gang-rape on July 29, 2016, near Dostpur village on National Highway 91, Bulandshahr. Bandits disabled a family car with a metallic axle, dragged occupants into fields, looted valuables, and gang-raped a mother and her 13-year-old daughter. FIR No. 538 of 2016 was registered under Sections 395, 397, 376-D IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act.

On July 31, 2016, Uttar Pradesh Cabinet Minister Azam Khan held a press conference declaring the gang-rape a “political conspiracy” by opponents to malign the ruling government before assembly elections. Aggrieved, the minor victim's father filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 136 of 2016 under Article 32, asserting that the remarks stripped the victims of dignity, prejudiced the investigation, and infringed Article 21. The petitioner sought a CBI probe, an FIR against the Minister, transfer of trial outside the State, and damages.

In a connected matter from Kerala (SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 34624 of 2017), Minister M.M. Mani made derogatory remarks against women tea plantation workers of “Pembilai Orumai” in Munnar during a wage protest.

On October 5, 2017, a 3-Judge Bench (Dipak Misra, C.J., A.M. Khanwilkar, and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.) framed five questions on free speech limits under Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(2) exhaustiveness, positive duties under Article 21, horizontal enforcement, collective responsibility under Articles 75(3) and 164(2), and constitutional torts, referring them to a Constitution Bench.

The 5-Judge Constitution Bench (S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.), assisted by Amici Curiae Harish Salve and Aparajita Singh, Attorney General R. Venkataramani, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, delivered judgment on January 3, 2023.

2. Specific Legal Issues & Questions of Law Framed

The Constitution Bench adjudicated five specific constitutional questions:

Exhaustiveness of Article 19(2): Are the eight grounds specified in Article 19(2) exhaustive for restricting free speech, or can additional restrictions be judicially created by invoking other fundamental rights such as Article 21?
Horizontal Application of Articles 19 and 21: Can fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 be enforced against persons other than the ‘State’ or its instrumentalities (i.e., horizontal effect against private individuals and non-state entities)?
Affirmative State Duty under Article 21: Is the State under a positive constitutional obligation to protect the rights of a citizen under Article 21 against threats to personal liberty posed by private citizens or non-state entities?
Collective Responsibility for Ministerial Speech: Can a statement made by a Minister, traceable to state affairs or defending the government, be attributed vicariously to the Government under Articles 75(3) and 164(2)?
Actionability as Constitutional Tort: Does a statement made by a Minister that is inconsistent with a citizen's Part III rights constitute a constitutional tort actionable for damages?

3. Authoritative Ratio Decidendi & Binding Legal Principles

1. Exhaustiveness of Article 19(2) Grounds: The Constitution Bench unanimously held that the eight grounds enumerated in Article 19(2)—sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence—are exhaustive. No additional restrictions can be imported by judicial interpretation or by invoking Article 21. Any restriction on free speech must be enacted “by law” and must strictly fit within one of the eight specified heads. Ministers, MPs, and MLAs enjoy the same speech rights as citizens, and courts cannot judicially impose additional speech restrictions or codes of conduct upon them under Article 19(2).

2. Direct Horizontal Application of Articles 19 and 21: In a landmark ruling, the Court held that fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced horizontally against private individuals and non-state entities, and not merely vertically against the State under Article 12. Reviewing Indian jurisprudence (Bodhisattwa Gautam, Vishaka, Puttaswamy) and comparative models (German Drittwirkung, South African Section 8(2), and Irish constitutionalism), the Bench affirmed that modern constitutionalism shields personal liberty, privacy, and speech against non-state encroachment, permitting judicial remedies against private violators.

3. Affirmative State Duty under Article 21: The Bench held that the State bears an affirmative constitutional duty to protect the life and personal liberty of citizens against private invasion. This obligation requires maintaining an effective investigative and protective apparatus. Failure to safeguard citizens against non-state violence or intimidation constitutes a justiciable breach of Article 21.

4. No Collective Responsibility for Individual Utterances: The Court held that Collective Responsibility under Articles 75(3) and 164(2) is a political mechanism of executive accountability to the legislature, requiring cabinet solidarity to retain legislative confidence. It is not an instrument of vicarious civil or criminal liability. Statements made by individual Ministers, even if touching upon state affairs or defending the government, cannot be vicariously attributed to the Council of Ministers.

5. Actionable Threshold for Constitutional Tort: The majority held that a mere verbal statement by a Minister violating a citizen's rights does not ipso facto constitute an actionable constitutional tort. To sustain an action in constitutional tort, the statement must act as an incitement or instruction leading to concrete acts or omissions by public officials or third parties causing tangible, actionable injury to the victim.

4. Significant Obiter Dicta & Institutional Observations

The Bench articulated significant institutional observations on constitutional values, ethics, and judicial restraint:

Justice Nagarathna on Hate Speech and Fraternity: Justice Nagarathna highlighted that hate speech strikes at “Fraternity” and individual dignity enshrined in the Preamble. Public functionaries wield state authority and public trust; their irresponsible remarks cause systemic harm and divide society. She recommended that Parliament and political parties enact a voluntary Code of Conduct for ministers and legislators.
Public vs. Private Law Remedies: Justice Nagarathna emphasized that while Articles 19 and 21 apply horizontally, writ petitions under Article 32 or 226 against purely private citizens should remain exceptional (e.g. habeas corpus or where public duty is discharged). For private defamation or verbal injury, ordinary civil suits and criminal remedies must be pursued.
Dual Liability in Tort: Justice Nagarathna observed that if a Minister's statement represents official Government policy that inflicts wrongful harm, the State is vicariously liable in tort. If made outside official policy, the Minister remains personally liable in civil tort for damages.
Majority on Judicial Self-Restraint: Justice Ramasubramanian underscored that prescribing codes of conduct for ministers is a legislative function. In a democracy, public functionaries are accountable to the electorate, and robust public debate requires tolerance for unpopular speech outside Article 19(2) limits.

5. Operative Verdict & Dispositive Relief

The 5-Judge Constitution Bench answered the five constitutional references as follows:

Reference Question 1: The grounds in Article 19(2) are exhaustive; no additional restrictions can be imported judicially under Article 21 or otherwise.
Reference Question 2: Fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities.
Reference Question 3: The State has an affirmative constitutional duty to protect citizens' rights under Article 21 against non-state threats.
Reference Question 4: A Minister's statement cannot be vicariously attributed to the Government under Articles 75(3) or 164(2).
Reference Question 5: A mere verbal statement does not constitute an actionable constitutional tort unless it causes tangible consequential injury.

Dispositive Disposal: The Bench directed the Registry to place individual writ petitions and appeals before the appropriate regular Benches for disposal on merits. In the Bulandshahr writ petition, the respondent Minister's unconditional apology had been accepted by the Court, and the CBI had concluded its investigation.

6. Statutory Analysis & Comparative Legislative Mapping

The constitutional principles established in Kaushal Kishor directly intersect with the new criminal laws and public liability frameworks:

Subject Matter	Legacy Framework	Modern Codification & BNS Impact
Free Speech & Restrictions Articles 19(1)(a) & 19(2)	Article 19(2) with eight closed heads. Section 66A IT Act was struck down in Shreya Singhal (2015) for overbreadth.	Exhaustive Heads Reaffirmed: Penal speech offences under BNS 2023 must strictly fall within Article 19(2) grounds. Courts cannot judicially create unwritten speech bans.
Horizontal Right to Life Article 21 & Private Actors	Applied vertically against the State under Article 12, with ad-hoc exceptions in sexual violence cases (Bodhisattwa Gautam).	Direct Horizontal Efficacy: Article 21 protects bodily integrity and dignity against non-state actors, working alongside BNS bodily offences (Sections 63–71) and BNSS Section 396 victim compensation.
Collective Responsibility Articles 75(3) & 164(2)	Cabinet solidarity before the legislature; ambiguity regarding state civil liability for individual minister's public speech.	Personal Accountability: Collective responsibility creates no vicarious liability. Ministers making hate or defamatory statements face personal prosecution under BNS Sections 196 and 356.
Hate Speech IPC Sec 153A, 505 vs. BNS	IPC Sections 153A, 295A, 505; required prior government sanction under Section 196 CrPC, shielding political figures.	Sections 196 & 353 BNS, 2023: Codifies speech crimes. Ministers enjoy no speech immunity, reinforced by Supreme Court Shaheen Abdulla suo motu FIR directives.
Defamation & Insult IPC Sec 499, 500, 504 vs. BNS	Sections 499, 500, 504 IPC; criminal defamation upheld in Subramanian Swamy (2016) under Article 19(2).	Sections 356 & 352 BNS, 2023: Section 356 introduces community service alongside imprisonment. Disparaging speech by public figures against citizens is actionable in criminal and civil law.
Constitutional Tort Article 32/226 Public Law	Compensation developed in Rudul Sah and Nilabati Behera, restricted to custodial violence and illegal detention.	Actionable Harm Threshold: Mere speech requires consequential tangible injury to sustain constitutional tort claims; unauthorized speech remains actionable in private tort against the speaker.

7. Subsequent Judicial Treatment & Precedential Lineage

Kaushal Kishor has served as a touchstone precedent across constitutional and speech jurisprudence through 2026:

Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023) 5 SCC 1: The 5-Judge Constitution Bench applied Kaushal Kishor when examining the horizontal effect of Articles 15(2), 19, and 21, evaluating whether fundamental rights impose positive obligations on private individuals and social institutions in marriage equality.
Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India (2023) 4 SCC 214 & Hate Speech Matters: The Supreme Court issued binding nationwide directions requiring State police forces to lodge suo motu FIRs against hate speeches under IPC 153A/295A/505 (now BNS 196/299/353), reiterating that public figures and ministers possess no special constitutional license to make hate speech.
Delhi High Court Political Defamation Rulings (2024–2025): In civil defamation suits involving political functionaries, the Delhi High Court cited Kaushal Kishor to rule that while political debate is robust, defamatory remarks injuring private reputation without factual backing are not insulated by ministerial status.
Bombay High Court in Sunil Sitani v. State of Maharashtra (2024): The High Court rejected an elected representative's claim of immunity for social media statements, holding that under Kaushal Kishor, statements made outside cabinet authorization are personal and subject to Section 196 BNS prosecution.
Horizontal Rights Enforcement (2024–2026): High Courts in Delhi and Madras have applied Kaushal Kishor to entertain Article 226 writ petitions against private arbitral bodies, tech intermediaries, and private hospitals where arbitrary action impaired personal liberty or fundamental expressive rights.

8. Practical Litigation Playbook & Strategic Checklist

Litigation Playbook: Operationalizing the Kaushal Kishor Doctrine

A. For Advocates & Litigants Enforcing Rights Horizontally Against Non-State Entities

Plead Direct Violation of Articles 19 and 21: Structure writ petitions under Article 226/32 asserting horizontal rights against private corporations, hospitals, or entities that arbitrarily impair personal liberty or speech, citing Paragraphs 78–86 of Kaushal Kishor.
Establish Public Function or Monopolistic Power: Satisfy Justice Nagarathna’s threshold by demonstrating that the private respondent exercises quasi-public functions or affects essential civil rights.
Plead State's Affirmative Failure: Implead state authorities alongside private actors, asserting the State's positive constitutional duty under Article 21 to shield citizens from non-state harassment.
Prove Consequential Injury for Constitutional Tort: In claims for public damages against ministerial speech, prove direct causal linkage between the utterance and subsequent tangible administrative harm or injury.

B. For Public Functionaries, Ministers, MPs & Campaign Orators

No Sovereign Speech Immunity: Ministerial rank provides no immunity from criminal law or civil torts. Speech at rallies or press meets is personal and amenable to Section 356 (Defamation) and Section 196 (Hate Speech) BNS, 2023.
Ground Remarks in Official Records: Defence of state decisions must reflect cabinet records. Unverified claims attributing crimes to political plots create personal tortious liability without state legal indemnity.
Respect Article 19(2) Heads: Ensure public remarks do not breach public order, decency, defamation, or incitement. Article 19(2) exhaustiveness shields robust political dissent but provides zero shelter for hate speech.
Adopt Pre-Clearance Protocols: Political parties should institute clearance mechanisms for statements concerning sub-judice matters to avoid victim disparagement or contempt.

C. For Citizens & Aggrieved Victims Seeking Redress Against Derogatory Utterances

File Private Complaints under BNS: Where public figures insult victims, file a private complaint under Section 356 (Defamation) and Section 352 (Insult) BNS, 2023. No government sanction under Section 218 BNSS is required for personal derogatory remarks.
Initiate Civil Tort Suits: File a civil suit for compensatory and aggravated damages for defamation and emotional distress against the speaker individually.
Seek Transfer of Investigation or Trial: If ministerial statements compromise police neutrality or witness safety, petition the Court under Section 447 BNSS for transfer of investigation to the CBI or trial outside the State.
Invoke Suo Motu Directives: Serve formal notice upon police officials citing the Supreme Court's Shaheen Abdulla mandate to register an FIR under Section 196 BNS against hate speech.

Previous Precedent All Landmark Precedents Next Precedent