Supreme Court ruling on Article 19 ambit

January 5, 2023

The Supreme Court of India recently made a significant ruling in a case involving the fundamental right to freedom of speech. In a 4-1 majority decision, the Constitution Bench of the court stated that an individual can seek enforcement of this right not only against the government, but also against other citizens. This ruling expands the grounds for seeking protection of these rights.

Article 19 and the Right to Free Speech

Article 19 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, and is typically invoked against the state. Some fundamental rights, such as those prohibiting untouchability, trafficking, and bonded labor, are explicitly against both the state and other individuals. The recent Supreme Court ruling extends the right to free speech to include protection against private citizens.

Enforcing Rights against Private Entities

This interpretation brings an obligation on the state to ensure that private entities also abide by Constitutional norms. It opens up a range of possibilities in Constitutional law, potentially allowing for the enforcement of privacy rights against a private doctor or the right to free speech against a private social media entity.

Reference to Previous Court Rulings

The Court referenced the 2017 verdict in Puttaswamy, in which a nine-judge bench unanimously upheld privacy as a fundamental right. The government had argued that privacy is a right enforceable against other citizens and, therefore, cannot be elevated to the status of a fundamental right against the state.

International Perspectives on Fundamental Rights

The Court also looked to foreign jurisdictions, contrasting the American approach with the European Courts. The US Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Times vs. Sullivan, which found that defamation law as applied by the state against The New York Times was inconsistent with the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression, was cited as an example of a shift in US law from a “purely vertical approach” to a “horizontal approach.”

A vertical application of rights means they can only be enforced against the state, while a horizontal approach means they are enforceable against other citizens. For example, a horizontal application of the right to life would enable a citizen to bring a case against a private entity for causing pollution, which would be a violation of the right to a clean environment.

« Previous PostNext Post »