The petition dealt with the misuse of the right of freedom of speech and expression, as provided under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, by public functionaries who made distasteful remarks against certain individuals who were the victims of a crime. The grounds lined up in Art. 19(2) for restricting the right to free speech are exhaustive. Freedom of an individual under Art. 19(1)(a) cannot be subjected to additional restrictions not found in Art. 19(2) by invoking other fundamental rights, or, under the guise of two fundamental rights taking a competing claim against each other. Whenever two or more fundamental rights appeared either to be on a collision course or to be seeking preference over one another, the Court has dealt with the same by applying well-established legal tools. But under the guise of invoking other fundamental rights, additional restrictions, over and above those prescribed in Art. 19(2), cannot be imposed upon the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression protected under Art. 19(1)(a). The Constitution Bench held that the Freedom of Speech of public officials cannot be restricted in favour of another person’s fundamental rights. All those who are aware of what happened that night on NH 91 and further Mr. Azam Khan’s remark on that, firmly acknowledge his statement to be cruel, inhumane, and insensitive. However, they held that the State has an obligation to protect the fundamental rights of citizen’s even against non-state actors such as other private persons. Liberty must come by the Law.
[Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P., (2023) 4 SCC 1]