Constitution of India – Arts. 19(1)(a) and 19(2) – Are the grounds specified in Article 19(2) in relation to which reasonable restrictions on the right to free speech can be imposed by law, exhaustive, or can restrictions on the right to free speech be imposed on grounds not found in Article 19(2) by invoking other fundamental rights – Held: The grounds lined up in Art.19(2) for restricting the right to free speech are exhaustive – Under the guise of invoking other fundamental rights or under the guise of two fundamental rights staking a competing claim against each other, additional restrictions not found in Article 19(2), cannot be imposed on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(a) upon any individual.

Constitution of India – Arts. 19 and 21 – Can a fundamental right under Article 19 or 21 be claimed other than against the ‘State’ or its instrumentalities – Held (per V. Ramasubramanian, J.) (for S.Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna, JJ., and himself): A fundamental right under Article 19/21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities – Held (per B.V. Nagarathna, J.): The rights in the realm of common law, which may be similar or identical in their content to the Fundamental Rights under Article 19/21, operate horizontally – However, the Fundamental Rights under Arts. 19 and 21, may not be justiciable horizontally before the Constitutional Courts except those rights which have been statutorily recognised and in accordance with the applicable law – However, they may be the basis for seeking common law remedies – But a remedy in the form of writ of Habeas Corpus,if sought against a private person on the basis of Article 21 can be before a Constitutional Court i.e., by way of Article 226 before the High Court or Article 32 read with Article 142 before the Supreme Court.

Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Whether the State is under a duty to affirmatively protect the rights of a citizen under Art.21 even against a threat to the liberty of a citizen by the acts or omissions of another citizen or private agency – Held (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.) (for S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai and A.S.Bopanna, JJ., and himself): The State is under a duty to affirmatively protect the rights of a person under Article 21, whenever there is a threat to personal liberty, even by a non-State actor – Held (perB.V. Nagarathna, J.): The duty cast upon the State under Article 21 is a negative duty not to deprive a person of his life and personal liberty except in accordance with law – The State has an affirmative duty to carry out obligations cast upon it under statutory and constitutional law, which are based on the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution – Such obligations may require interference by the State where acts of a private actor may threaten the life or liberty of another individual –Failure to carry out the duties enjoined upon the State under statutory law to protect the rights of a citizen, could have the effect of depriving a citizen of his right to life and personal liberty – When a citizen is so deprived of his right to life and personal liberties, the State would have breached the negative duty cast upon it under Art.21.

Doctrines/Principles – Principle of Collective Responsibility– Can a statement made by a Minister, traceable to any affairs of State or for protecting the Government, be attributed vicariously to the Government itself, especially in view of the principle of Collective Responsibility – Held (per V. Ramasubramanian, J.) (for S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna, JJ., and himself) : 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– Held (per B.V. Nagarathna, J.): A statement made by a Minister if traceable to any affairs of the State or for protecting the Government, can be attributed vicariously to the Government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility, so long as such statement represents the view of the Government also – If such a statement is not consistent with the view of the Government, then it is attributable to the Minister personally.

Tort – Constitutional Tort – Whether a statement by a Minister,inconsistent with the rights of a citizen under Part III of the Constitution, constitutes a violation of such constitutional rights and is actionable as ‘Constitutional Tort” – Held (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.) (for S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai and A.S.Bopanna, JJ., and himself) : 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 – Held (Per B.V. Nagarathna, J.): A proper legal framework is necessary to define the acts or omissions which would amount to constitutional tort and the manner in which the same would be redressed or remedied on the basis of judicial precedent.