New Delhi, Feb 17 – The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a petition seeking strict guidelines for statements and remarks made by constitutional officials that do not align with constitutional principles.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant said the issue was serious, but the petition appeared to target specific individuals.
The petition cited remarks made by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, BJP leader Nitesh Rane, and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, among others, and claimed that nearly 30 concerning public statements had been identified.
During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners – a group of former civil servants and academics – argued that urgent judicial intervention was needed. "We need to take action. Only your lordships can do this. This situation is becoming too toxic. This petition does not target any individual," he argued.
However, the CJI-led bench observed that the petition "selectively targeted certain individuals, while ignoring others".
"This is unacceptable; they should act fairly," the court remarked, adding that the Supreme Court could not hear a case that appeared to be directed against a particular party or individual.
When Sibal clarified that no specific relief was being sought against Chief Minister Sarma and assured that references to him would be removed, the CJI-led bench suggested that the petition be withdrawn and a new one filed focusing solely on constitutional principles. "The petitioners should not create the impression that they are against a particular party or individual," the Supreme Court said.
The bench, also comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi, emphasized that political parties must foster fraternity and adhere to constitutional morality.
"Political leaders must ultimately foster fraternity in the country," it observed, adding that "there should be restraint from all sides".
The CJI-led bench also raised a broader concern, questioning whether guidelines, even if framed, would be followed.
"Before making a speech, one must consider the potential consequences. How can we control thoughts?" it asked.
In response, Sibal said that while thoughts cannot be regulated, consequences can be attached to actions, citing the Vishakha guidelines, which were in effect until the anti-sexual harassment law was enacted.
Sibal pointed out that certain speeches made before the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) were still circulating online even after elections were announced, and the Election Commission of India (ECI) often found it difficult to act, as the statements predated the formal announcement of elections.
The senior counsel urged the Supreme Court to consider laying down guidelines for the media and online platforms in such situations.
The CJI Surya Kant-led bench acknowledged that the petitioners were "eminent persons" and that the Supreme Court respected the seriousness of the issue they had raised.
"We are inclined to hear the petition. We are waiting for an objective and impartial assessment," the CJI said, while noting that the present petition was "poorly drafted".
The Supreme Court adjourned the matter for two weeks to allow for the filing of a revised petition. Sibal assured the bench that a revised plea, without naming any individual and applicable to all political parties, would be filed within a week.
The writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution through advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, contended that repeated discriminatory and derogatory utterances by holders of public office undermine the core values of the Constitution.
Referring to the Constituent Assembly Debates, the petition cited Acharya J.B. Kripalani’s warning that the principles enshrined in the Preamble were "not merely legal, constitutional, and formal principles, but moral principles" which must be lived in political, administrative, and public life.
"More than seven decades later, we find ourselves in a political climate where the preambular principles remain in the text, but the actions of administrators and constitutional functionaries often betray their intent," the petition said, adding that "living the principles, as Acharya Kripalani would have asked for, has been lost both in thought and practice".
The petition alleged that this failure to adhere to constitutional morality has resulted in a series of concerning public statements by constitutional authorities and senior public officials across the country in recent years.
While acknowledging that political actors may subscribe to different ideologies, the petition asserted that constitutional functionaries and holders of public office are bound by the Constitution to ensure fairness in action and restraint in speech.
"Constitutional functionaries, holders of public office, and officials of the government are bound by the Constitution to ensure fairness in action. This would also mean that statements which are discriminatory or derogatory in nature, even if not amounting to hate speech, should be impermissible to be uttered by such persons," it added.
Clarifying the scope of the relief sought, the petition stressed that it does not seek to curtail free speech or demand penal action for hate speech, which is governed by existing law.
"The present petition does not seek to limit free speech or seek punishments for hate speech," it said, adding that the limited prayer is for the apex court to evolve guidelines, either through judicial examination or a dialogic process, to ensure that public officials adhere to constitutional morality in their conduct and public discourse.
