Constitutional Tort Explained: Hate Speech and State Liability in India

In a significant constitutional debate, prominent activists and religious leaders have urged the Supreme Court of India to recognise hate speech as a “constitutional tort” rather than treating it merely as a law and order issue. This demand reflects a shift from viewing hate speech as an isolated criminal offence to understanding it as a systemic failure of the State to protect Fundamental Rights.

If accepted, this approach would make the State directly accountable for the consequences of hate speech and provide victims a powerful constitutional remedy.

Judiciary Current Affairs

What is a Constitutional Tort?

A constitutional tort is a public law remedy that allows courts to hold the State vicariously liable for violations of Fundamental Rights committed by its officials while acting under official authority.

Unlike ordinary torts, which deal with private wrongs, constitutional torts focus on abuse of State power and aim to protect citizens from unconstitutional actions.

In simple terms:

When the State violates your Fundamental Rights, it must compensate you, not just punish the offender.

Key Features of Constitutional Tort

1. State Accountability
   The State is responsible for wrongful acts committed by public officials during official duties.

2. Acts Under Colour of Law
   Applies when power is misused or abused under the authority of the State.

3. Compensation-Based Remedy
   Victims are awarded monetary compensation for violation of rights, especially under:

• Article 14 – Right to Equality

• Article 19 – Freedom of Speech and Expression

• Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

4. Public Law Remedy
   Relief is granted directly by constitutional courts through writ jurisdiction.

5. Strengthens Rule of Law
   Keeps State power under continuous judicial scrutiny.

Constitutional Basis of Constitutional Tort in India

The idea of constitutional tort draws its legitimacy from the Constitution itself:

• Article 294(b)
  Provides continuity of liability from pre-Constitution governments.

• Article 300(1)
  Allows the Union and States to sue or be sued, establishing legal responsibility of the State.

• Article 32
  Empowers citizens to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

• Article 226
  Empowers High Courts to issue writs for the same purpose.

Together, these Articles form the backbone of State liability in constitutional wrongs.

Evolution Through Landmark Judgments

Indian judiciary has developed the doctrine of constitutional tort through case law:

1. Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983)
   Compensation granted for illegal detention.

2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Odisha (1993)
   Recognised compensation as a public law remedy for custodial death.

3. Saheli v. Commissioner of Police (1990)
   Held State liable for police brutality.

4. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
   Established safeguards and compensation for custodial violence.

These cases transformed Fundamental Rights into enforceable financial claims against the State.

Constitutional Tort vs Ordinary Tort

Why Hate Speech as a Constitutional Tort?

Traditionally, hate speech is treated as:

• A criminal offence

• A law and order problem

• An issue of policing and prosecution

Activists argue that this is inadequate because hate speech:

• Violates Article 14 (Equality before law)

• Threatens Article 19 (Free speech balance)

• Endangers Article 21 (Life, dignity, and security)

By recognising hate speech as a constitutional tort:

• The State becomes accountable for failure to prevent or control it

• Victims can directly claim compensation

• Hate speech becomes a constitutional failure, not just an administrative lapse

Impact of Recognising Hate Speech as a Constitutional Tort

1. Stronger Deterrence
   Financial liability forces the State to act proactively.

2. Victim-Centric Justice
   Shifts focus from punishment of offender to rehabilitation of victims.

3. Accountability of Governance
   Non-action or selective action becomes constitutionally punishable.

4. Protection of Constitutional Morality
   Preserves secularism, fraternity, and dignity.

Significance for UPSC and Judiciary

For UPSC aspirants, this topic is important under:

• Polity: Fundamental Rights

• Governance: Accountability mechanisms

• Ethics: Constitutional morality

• Current Affairs: Supreme Court debates on hate speech

One-liner for mains:

“Recognising hate speech as a constitutional tort would elevate it from a policing concern to a constitutional breach, ensuring direct State accountability for erosion of fraternity and dignity.”

Conclusion

The concept of constitutional tort represents the Constitution in action. It ensures that rights are not symbolic but enforceable against State power. Recognising hate speech as a constitutional tort would redefine governance standards in India by making the State financially and morally accountable for protecting equality, dignity, and fraternity.

It transforms justice from punishment-based to rights-based governance—a true hallmark of constitutional democracy.

Sharing is caring!