New Delhi, February 25 Observing that fraternity is a critical element for national unity and social cohesion, the Supreme Court has said that public figures holding high constitutional offices cannot target any particular community based on religion, language, caste, or region.
The top court said that no one, including State and non-State actors, can vilify or denigrate any community through speeches, memes, cartoons, or visual art.
These observations were made by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in a separate judgment on a plea challenging the release of the upcoming Netflix crime thriller, "Ghooskhor Pandat."
"It is constitutionally impermissible for anyone, whether the State or non-State actors, to vilify and denigrate any community through any medium, such as speeches, memes, cartoons, visual arts, etc."
"It would be a violation of the Constitution for anyone to target any particular community based on religion, language, caste, or region. This is particularly true for public figures holding high constitutional office who have taken a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution," Justice Bhuyan wrote in a 39-page judgment.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Bhuyan disposed of a plea seeking a stay on the release of the film on February 19 after taking filmmaker Neeraj Pandey's affidavit on record and said it is expected that this controversy will be resolved in all respects.
In his judgment, Justice Bhuyan said that one of the solemn objectives of the Constitution, which is mentioned in the Preamble, is to promote fraternity among all citizens of India, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.
"Thus, cultivating a sense of brotherhood and respecting fellow citizens irrespective of caste, religion, or language is a constitutional duty that each of us must follow," the judge wrote.
Justice Bhuyan said that liberty of thought and expression is one of the ideals of our Constitution, and Article 19(1)(a) confers this fundamental right on all citizens.
"The reasonable restrictions provided for in Article 19(2) must remain reasonable and not fanciful and oppressive. Article 19(2) cannot overshadow the substantive rights under Article 19(1), including the right to freedom of speech and expression," he wrote.
