New Delhi: Political leaders must foster fraternity in the country, the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday while asking 12 petitioners, including academician Roop Rekha Verma, to file a fresh plea seeking the guidelines on political speeches.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi, however, declined to entertain a PIL seeking guidelines for politicians and the media when reporting or amplifying speeches by leaders that allegedly affect the fraternity and constitutional values.
The petition, argued by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, was moved in the backdrop of alleged hate speeches by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
However, the bench of the Supreme Court expressed concern that the plea appeared to single out certain individuals.
“Of course it is against an individual, especially at this time.” The Chief Justice then asked to withdraw this and instead file a simple plea on what conditional guardrails have been laid down and how political parties are violating them.
He added that a petition targeting “selectively chosen few” would not be acceptable. Any challenge, he said, must be objective and even-handed. “We are inclined to entertain such a petition. We are eagerly waiting for someone with objectivity to come and file one,” he remarked as per PTI reports.
Justice Nagarathna stressed the broader constitutional value at stake. “Political leaders must foster fraternity in the country,” she observed.
She also raised practical concerns about framing new rules. “Suppose we lay down guidelines… Who will follow them?” she asked. She further added that any origin of speech is thought, and then asked how it is supposed to regularise or control thoughts? “We must raise thoughts in line with constitutional values,” added Nagarathna
Justice Bagchi added that while the court can pass orders, ensuring implementation is often difficult. He pointed out that the Supreme Court has already laid down principles on hate speech and free expression in earlier judgments. “Responsibility lies with the political parties as well. He is a member of the party, a leader,” he said.
Sibal argued that while the Election Commission’s Model Code of Conduct (MCC) applies during elections, speeches made before the MCC period often continue to circulate on social media even after it comes into force. “In the digital world, when the MCC comes into force, these speeches are repeated. What is the responsibility of the media in such cases so that the democratic atmosphere is not vitiated?” he asked.
However, the Chief Justice noted that public servants are already governed by service rules, including the All India Services Rules, and cautioned against casually drafted pleas.
While declining to entertain the present PIL, the court indicated it is open to examining a properly framed, neutral petition addressing broader issues of political speech and constitutional values. For now, the bench made it clear that maintaining fraternity is a responsibility that lies primarily with political leaders and parties themselves.
