SYLLABUS
GS-2: Indian Constitution—Historical Underpinnings, Evolution, Features, Amendments, Significant Provisions and Basic Structure.
Context: The Delhi High Court recently held that a private media house performing a public function may be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for an alleged violation of the right to privacy, bringing renewed attention to the doctrine of horizontal application of Fundamental Rights.
Key Highlights of the Delhi High Court Judgment
- The Court observed that a private media organisation may be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 if it performs functions that significantly affect public rights and interests.
- It emphasized that freedom of the press is not absolute and must be balanced against an individual’s right to privacy, recognized as a Fundamental Right under Article 21.
- The Court rejected the argument that writ remedies are available only against the State, noting that Article 226 has a wider scope than Article 32 and may extend to private bodies performing public functions.
- In arriving at its conclusion, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), which had discussed the horizontal application of Fundamental Rights.
Understanding the Horizontal Application of Fundamental Rights
- Meaning of Horizontal Application
- Traditionally, Fundamental Rights operate vertically, i.e., against the State. Horizontal application refers to their operation against private individuals or entities in certain circumstances.
- It may be direct (rights enforceable against private actors) or indirect (courts interpreting laws and constitutional values to protect rights in private relationships).
- Constitutional Basis
- While Fundamental Rights are generally enforceable against the State under Articles 12 and 13, the Constitution itself envisages limited horizontal application.
- Examples include Article 15(2) (non-discrimination in access to public spaces), Article 17 (abolition of untouchability), Article 23 (prohibition of trafficking and forced labour), and Article 24 (prohibition of child labour).
- Judicial Evolution
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): The Supreme Court framed guidelines against workplace sexual harassment, including for private establishments, thereby extending constitutional protections beyond direct State action.
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): The Court recognized privacy as a Fundamental Right and observed that threats to privacy may arise not only from the State but also from private actors.
- Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): The Constitution Bench recognized that certain Fundamental Rights may, in appropriate circumstances, operate horizontally against non-State actors.
Significance of the Doctrine
- Protecting Rights in the Digital Age: Ensures constitutional safeguards against rights violations by powerful private actors such as digital platforms, media organisations, and corporations.
- Strengthening Privacy and Human Dignity: The doctrine provides constitutional safeguards against privacy violations, discrimination, exploitation, and other harms caused by non-State actors.
- Enhancing Accountability of Public-Function Entities: It ensures that private bodies performing functions affecting public rights and democratic processes remain accountable to constitutional norms and values.
- Making Fundamental Rights More Effective: Horizontal application helps adapt constitutional protections to contemporary socio-economic realities where private power can sometimes rival or exceed State power.
Concerns and Challenges
- Defining the Scope of ‘Public Function’: Determining when a private entity performs a sufficiently public role remains a complex legal question and may lead to inconsistent judicial outcomes.
- Balancing Competing Fundamental Rights: Courts must carefully reconcile rights such as privacy, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, particularly in media-related disputes.
- Constitutional Ambiguity: Articles such as 19 and 21 were originally conceived primarily as protections against State action, making the extent of their horizontal application a continuing area of constitutional debate.
- Risk of Judicial Overreach: Excessive expansion of horizontal rights may blur the distinction between public and private domains and increase judicial intervention in private affairs.
Way Forward
- Develop Clear Judicial Standards: Courts should evolve objective criteria for identifying private entities performing public functions and determining the extent of constitutional obligations.
- Balance Competing Fundamental Rights: A contextual approach is needed to reconcile privacy, dignity, free speech, and press freedom without disproportionately privileging one right over another.
- Strengthen Statutory Safeguards: Robust data protection, privacy, labour, and anti-discrimination laws can complement constitutional remedies and reduce dependence on judicial intervention.
- Adopt a Calibrated Approach: Horizontal application should evolve incrementally, ensuring constitutional accountability while preserving the legitimate autonomy of private actors.