No One Can Be Penalised For Holding An Opinion Not In Confirmity With Constitutional Values: Supreme Court

No one can either be taxed or penalised for holding an opinion which is not in conformity with the constitutional values, the Supreme Court remarked in its judgment delivered today.

The Constitution Bench (majority 4:1) observed thus while holding that a mere statement made by a Minister, inconsistent with the fundamental 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.

One of the issues considered by the Constitution Bench in Kaushal Kishore vs State of Uttar Pradesh was “whether a statement by a Minister, inconsistent with the rights of a citizen under Part­III of the Constitution, constitutes a violation of such constitutional rights and is actionable as ‘Constitutional Tort’?"

The court said that it has some difficulty with the words “a statement by a Minister”. It explained:

"A statement may be made by a Minister either inside or outside the House of People/Legislative Assembly of the State. A statement may also be made by a Minister in writing or by words spoken. A statement may be made in private or in public. A statement may also be made by a Minister either touching upon the affairs of the Ministry/ department of which he is in control or touching generally upon the policies of the Government of which he is a part. A Minister may also make a statement, in the form of an opinion on matters about which he or his department is not concerned or over which he has no control. All such statements need not necessarily give rise to an action in tort or in constitutional tort."

The bench cited an example of a case where a Minister makes a statement that women are unfit to be employed in a particular avocation.

"It may reflect his insensitivity to gender equality and also may expose his low constitutional morality. The fact that due to his insensitivity or lack of understanding or low constitutional morality, he speaks a language that has the potential to demean the constitutional rights of women, cannot be a ground for action in Constitutional tort. Needless to say that no one can either be taxed or penalised for holding an opinion which is not in conformity with the constitutional values. It is only when his opinion gets translated into action and such action results in injury or harm or loss that an action in tort will lie." 

The majority judgment therefore answered the issue raised as follows:

"A mere statement made by a Minister, inconsistent with the rights of a citizen under PartIII 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."

A proper legal framework is necessary to define the acts or omissions which would amount to constitutional tort

Justice BV Nagarathna, dissented with this view of the majority

“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. Particularly, it is not prudent to treat all cases where a statement made by a public functionary resulting in harm or loss to a person/citizen, as a constitutional tort, except in the context of the answer given to Question No. 4 above.” 

[Question No. 4 was answered as follows: “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.” ]

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.