RECONSIDERING HORIZONTAL APPLICATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AFTER KAUSHAL KISHOR V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

The Constitution Bench decision in Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh reopened one of the most contested questions in Indian constitutional law: whether fundamental rights may operate horizontally against private actors. This article critically examines the Court's majority opinion alongside Justice B.V. Nagarathna's concurring judgment, arguing that while the Court correctly acknowledged the need to protect individuals from private rights violations, it failed to articulate a coherent doctrinal framework for horizontal application. Through an analysis of Articles 12, 19, 21, 32, and 226, the paper traces the evolution of Indian jurisprudence from the traditional vertical model to emerging forms of indirect horizontality. It further evaluates comparative constitutional approaches adopted in Germany, South Africa, and the United States to demonstrate that constitutional values may influence private law without eliminating the distinction between state and private action. The article contends that the majority's reasoning leaves unresolved questions concerning remedies, standards of enforcement, and the limits of constitutional adjudication. It argues that Justice Nagarathna's model of indirect horizontal application, mediated through statutory and common law, offers a more principled and institutionally coherent approach. The paper concludes by advocating legislative reform to address private rights violations while preserving the constitutional architecture governing fundamental rights enforcement.