Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-29T17:47:46.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ghost of Article 12 in the Indian Constitution: the Verticality v. Horizontality Conundrum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2025

Nidhi Sharma
Nidhi Sharma*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor and Assistant Director, Centre for Constitutional Law Studies, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The chapter on fundamental rights in the Constitution of India, under article 12, identifies the “state” as the actor against whom fundamental rights can be enforced. Decades-long jurisprudence invoking article 12 has established the vertical enforcement of fundamental rights against state actors. However, a constitutional bench judgment in Kaushal Kishor (2023) alters this position, wherein the Supreme Court of India expanded the scope of fundamental rights against both state and non-state actors. This article analyzes the dictum in Kishor to argue that even when fundamental rights have been sporadically enforced against non-state actors, it has been by obligating the state to mitigate fundamental rights transgressions by non-state actors (doctrine of indirect horizontal application). The article raises constitutional concerns about the Court's reasoning in Kishor, positing that it ignores the constitutional mandate of article 12, disregards the judicial precedents supporting the vertical application of fundamental rights, and grants an unbounded sanction to enforce fundamental rights against virtually “anyone.”

Keywords

Fundamental RightsArticle 12State ActionVertical ApplicationHorizontal Application
Type
Article
Information
International Journal of Legal Information , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , Spring 2024 , pp. 98 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by International Association of Law Libraries

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Khanna, H.R., Making of India's Constitution (Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 2008), 32Google Scholar.

2 Ibid., 36, 37.

3 Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, “Sapru Committee Report” (1945), https://www.constitutionofindia.net/historical-constitution/sapru-committee-report-sir-tej-bahadur-sapru-1945/.

4 Constitution of India, art. 13, clause 2.

5 Ibid., art. 12.

6 University of Madras v. Shantha Bai, AIR 1954 Mad 67.

7 Padmanabhan, Ananth, “Rights: Breadth, Scope, and Applicability,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, eds. Choudhary, Sujit, Khosla, Madhav, and Mehta, Pratap Bhanu (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 585Google Scholar.

8 Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857; Sukhdev v. Bhagatram, AIR 1975 SC 1331; R.D. Shetty v. Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487; Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111.

9 Krishnaswamy, Sudhir, “Horizontal Application of Fundamental Rights and State Action in India,” in Human Rights, Justice and Constitutional Empowerment, eds. Raj Kumar, C. and Chockalingam, K. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 51Google Scholar. See also Gardbaum, Stephen, “Horizontal Effect,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, eds. Sujit Choudhary, Madhav Khosla, and Pratap Bhanu Mehta (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 602–07Google Scholar.

10 People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 1982 AIR 1473; MC Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1997 SC 699; Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India, 6 SCC 398 (2009).

11 Zee Telefims v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649.

12 Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 4 SCC 1.

13 Anujay Shrivastava, “Indian Supreme Court's Judgment on ‘Horizontal Application’ of Fundamental Rights: An ‘Unconstitutional Informal Constitutional Change’?,” IACL-AIDC Blog, Jan. 31, 2023, https://blog-iacl-aidc.org/2023-posts/2023/1/31/indian-supreme-courts-judgment-on-horizontal-application-of-fundamental-rights-an-unconstitutional-informal-constitutional-change.

14 M.P. Singh, “Fundamental Rights, State Action and Cricket in India,” Asia Pacific Law Review 13, no. 2 (2005): 203–14.

15 University of Madras v. Shantha Bai, AIR 1954 Mad 67 [5].

16 Padmanabhan, “Rights: Breadth, Scope, and Applicability,” 583.

17 Sukhdev, AIR 1975 SC 1331 [67].

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Som Prakash v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 212.

21 Electricity Board, AIR 1967 SC 1857 [6].

22 Padmanabhan, “Rights: Breadth, Scope, and Applicability,” 585.

23 R.D. Shetty v. Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487.

24 Zee Telefilms, (2005) 4 SCC 649.

25 Singh, “Fundamental Rights,” 208.

26 Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111.

27 Ibid.

28 Rupa Ashok Hurra, (2002) 3 SCC 388.

29 Constitution of India, art. 226, clause 1.

30 Zee Telefilms, (2005) 4 SCC 649 (emphasis added).

31 Kaushal Kishor, (2023) 4 SCC 1.

32 Padmanabhan, “Rights: Breadth, Scope, and Applicability,” 581.

33 Constituent Assembly Debates, vol. 7 (India: Lok Sabha Secretariat, 1986).

34 Ibid.

35 Constitution of India, art. 14.

36 Ibid., art. 15, clause 1.

37 Ibid., art. 16, clause 1.

38 Ibid., art. 18.

39 Seervai, H.M., Constitutional Law of India (New Delhi: Universal Book Traders, 1991), 374Google Scholar.

40 Constituent Assembly Debates, vol. 7 (emphasis added).

41 Zoroastrian Cooperative v. District Registrar, AIR 2005 SC 2306.

42 Zee Telefilms, (2005) 4 SCC 649.

43 Chander Mohan Khanna v. National Council of Educational Research and Training, 1992 AIR 76.

44 Tekraj Vasandi Alias K.L. Basandhi v. Union of India, 1988 AIR 469.

45 Constitution of India, art. 51A.

46 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011.

47 People's Union for Democratic Rights, 1982 AIR 1473.

48 Zee Telefilms, (2005) 4 SCC 649; Board of Control for Cricket v. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 251.

49 MC Mehta, AIR 1997 SC 699.

50 Avinash Mehrotra, 6 SCC 398 (2009).

51 Ibid.

52 Kaushal Kishor, (2023) 4 SCC 1.

53 Gautam Bhatia, “Kaushal Kishor, Horizontal Rights, and Free Speech: Glaring Conceptual Errors,” Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy, Jan. 27, 2023, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2023/01/27/kaushal-kishor-horizontal-rights-and-free-speech-glaring-conceptual-errors/.

54 Kaushal Kishor, (2023) 4 SCC 1 [50–53].

55 Ibid., 55–57.

56 Ibid., 68.

57 Ibid. (emphasis added).

58 Ibid., 70.

59 European Convention on Human Rights, art. 8 – Right to respect for private and family life “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

60 Kaushal Kishor, (2023) 4 SCC 1 [103].

61 Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039.

62 People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301.

63 In Re: India Woman, (2014) 4 SCC 786.

64 People's Union for Democratic Rights, 1982 AIR 1473.

65 S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 SCR (2) 204.

66 Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243.

67 Nilabati Behera (Smt.) alias Lalita Behera (Through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) v. State of Orissa & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 746.

68 Sukhdev, AIR 1975 SC 1331.

69 K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1.

70 Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, 1996) 1 SC 490.

71 K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), (2019) 1 SCC 1 [617].

72 Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.

73 Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University, (2015) 16 SCC 530.

74 Ibid.

75 Ibid., 20.

76 Kaushal Kishor, (2023) 4 SCC 1 [78].

77 Zee Telefilms, (2005) 4 SCC 649.

78 Rupa Ashok Hurra, (2002) 3 SCC 388.

79 Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207.

80 K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), (2019) 1 SCC 1.

81 His Holiness Kesavanada Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.

82 Zee Telefilms, (2005) 4 SCC 649.

83 Janet Jeyapaul, (2015) 16 SCC 530.

84 Kaushal Kishor, (2023) 4 SCC 1 [43] (emphasis added).

85 Constituent Assembly Debates, vol. 7.

86 MC Mehta, AIR 1997 SC 699; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1997) 10 SCC 549); Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 1.

87 Krishnaswamy, “Horizontal application of Fundamental Rights and State Action in India,” 47–73.

88 Kaushal Kishor, (2023) 4 SCC 1.

89 Shrivastava, “Indian Supreme Court's Judgment on ‘Horizontal Application.’”

90 Zee Telefilms, (2005) 4 SCC 649.

91 Janet Jeyapaul, (2015) 16 SCC 530.

92 Kaushal Kishor, (2023) 4 SCC 1.

93 Zee Telefilms, (2005) 4 SCC 649.

94 Ibid.

95 Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary & Ors., (2024) 1 SCR 11.