This news piece is based on “SC expands Article 19 ambit: Not just state, even pvt citizens can face challenge” which was published in The Hindu on January 05, 2023. 

Why in News?

The Supreme Court of India recently made a significant ruling in a case involving the fundamental right to freedom of speech and 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. 

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 puts an obligation on the state to ensure that private entities also abide by Constitutional norms. 

It opens 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 referred to the 2017 Puttaswamy judgement, 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 into 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.”