The Supreme Court has inadvertently expanded the grounds for asserting these rights against other citizens by holding that a citizen may seek enforcement of these rights against other citizens as well as the state.
According to the Constitution Bench’s ruling on Tuesday, which was 4-1 in favour, “A fundamental right under Article 19/21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities.”
The court adopted this stance when ruling that the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) cannot be restricted for any reasons beyond those already stated in Article 19. (2).
Whether “a fundamental right under Article 19 or 21 of the Constitution of India be claimed other than against the ‘State’ or its instrumentalities” was one of the issues put to the court.
A right used against the state is Article 19, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Some fundamental rights are explicitly against the state and other people, such as those that forbid bonded labour, untouchability, and other forms of trafficking.
The court creates a number of constitutional law options by expanding free expression to private individuals.
This interpretation might also impose a duty on the state to ensure private organisations follow constitutional principles. These queries might, in theory, cover everything from enforcing privacy rights against a private physician to enforcing the right to free speech against a private social media company.
“Over time, this court’s initial belief that these rights could only be enforced against the State was disproved. The majority opinion by Justice V Ramasubramanian stated that the transformation was from “State” to “Authorities” to “instrumentalities of State” to “agency of the Government” to “impregnation with Governmental character” to “enjoyment of monopoly status conferred by State” to “deep and pervasive control” to the “nature of the duties/functions performed.”
The Court cited the Puttaswamy decision from 2017, in which a nine-judge bench unanimously recognised privacy as a fundamental right. One of the main defences put forth by the government was that although privacy is a right that can be enforced against other citizens, it cannot be elevated to the position of a fundamental right against the state.
The Court contrasted the American strategy with the European Courts by citing a number of other foreign jurisdictions. In the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan, the US Supreme Court noted a change in US law from a “purely vertical approach” to a “horizontal approach,” concluding that the state’s application of defamation law against The New York Times violated the Constitution’s guarantee of the freedom of speech and expression.
“At least as of right now, no jurisdiction in the world appears to be pursuing a totally vertical or horizontal approach. Individual liberty, choice, and privacy are given more weight in a vertical approach than in a horizontal one.
constitutional principles in every person. These seemingly diametrically opposed methods highlight the age-old conundrum of “person versus. society,” according to the Court.
When rights are applied vertically, they can only be used against the government; when applied horizontally, they can also be used against other citizens.
For instance, a citizen may file a lawsuit against a private company for generating pollution under a horizontal application of the right to life, which would be a breach of the right to a clean environment.