A Study Relating to the Implications of Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh: Rights Brought Home or Welcoming Disarray

Abstract

The Constitution of India protects various civil, political and cultural rights of its subjects by dint of the provisions of Part III. The constitutional scheme mostly guarantees these rights (except a few) vertically making the ‘State’ duty bound to protect these rights. Since the commencement of the Constitution, the judiciary has expanded the scope and extent of ‘State’ with an intention to enlarge the canvas of protection of fundamental rights. The inclusive and broad interpretation given to Article 12 certainly amplified the sphere of state actors, but the line of demarcation between state and non-state actors was never faded away. It was an established constitutional scheme that a claim for violation of fundamental rights would lie only against state or its instrumentalities. However, recently the constitution bench in Kaushal Kishore introduced the horizontal application of fundamental rights which changed this well-established vertical protection of fundamental rights. Bringing reference to the countries like Ireland, Canada, Germany, United Kingdom, European Union etc. which have adopted horizontal position, the majority judges ruled that fundamental rights could be claimed against non-state actor as well. Though, prima facie, this judgment seems to be directed towards protecting and promoting rights, but it has posed a serious question before the well-established constitutional scheme. The present paper examines the ratio of Kaushal Kishore to assess whether the ruling will help in securing the rights or it will bring complexities in the legal system. Assessment for the need of the demarcating line between state and non-state actors is the central theme of this paper.