The Supreme Court said on Tuesday it was open to examining the larger issues of hate speech and constitutional morality that should guide political parties and their leaders, but made clear it would not accept “selective targeting” or allow such concerns to descend into the “monotony of politics.”
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices PV Nagarathna and Joymalia Bagchi was hearing a batch of petitions jointly filed by 12 individuals, including former bureaucrats, academics and civil society members, seeking guidelines to regulate public discourses of constitutional officers in the backdrop of alleged hate statements by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who represented the petitioners, said the atmosphere in the country had become “poisoned” and urged the court to intervene. “Your Lordships must do something about it,” Sibal said, arguing that the Election Commission and existing mechanisms had not adequately addressed hate speech outside the Model Code of Conduct period, especially on social media.
But the court repeatedly expressed its reservations about the way the petition was drafted, and repeatedly referred to only one individual.
“Our proposal is to withdraw this petition and file a simple plea on how political parties brazenly violate constitutional norms,” Kant said, while the judge objected to what he described as selective targeting. He added: “With people and allegations being selectively chosen, and other people being ignored, this is unacceptable. They must be fair.”
The court is “inclined to entertain such a petition” provided it is objective and not directed against specific individuals, the CJI said. He added: “We are impatiently waiting for an objective person to come and submit the file.”
On Monday, the ICJ-led court refused to accept three separate petitions seeking action against Sarma over remarks allegedly targeting Muslims, telling the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court instead.
But on Tuesday, the discussion expanded into a larger conversation about hate speech, political accountability and constitutional ethics.
CJI Kant observed that public servants are already bound by the Service Rules, including the All India Service Rules, and are expected to adhere to the standards of conduct. “When you talk about public figures and public servants… public servants must follow that. But there are rules. Do not resort to petitions that are worded casually,” he said, adding that one must follow “the limits of constitutional ethics.”
Justice Nagarathna asked whether it was necessary to follow the guidelines laid down by the judiciary. “There must be restraint from all parties. Political leaders must promote brotherhood in the country. Suppose we set guidelines – who will follow them?” I asked. She added: “The origin of speech is thought. How do you control thought? Therefore, we must raise ideas that are consistent with constitutional values.”
Judge Bagchi stressed that the court had already established principles in previous rulings dealing with hate speech. “From Kushal Kishore to (rulings) Amesh Devgn, how many guidelines have we put in place. The onus is on the political parties to implement as well,” he said, warning against ambiguous pleadings.
Justice Bagchi added: “Such petitions, so vague, are unexpected. This is what the ICJ was saying. It should not become a populist exercise, but a speculative constitutional exercise. The monotony of politics cannot obscure such important issues.”
At one point, the International Commission of Justice said that political parties themselves must respect constitutional values. He added: “You have political parties. You have the courage to draw up a constitution, and you brazenly want to run in elections,” stressing mutual respect and constitutional ethics.
As the bench repeatedly pointed out that the petition appeared to have been drafted “in haste”, Sibal sought two weeks’ time to amend it. The court agreed, effectively allowing the petitioners to restate their petition in broader, nonpartisan terms.
The petitioners in this case include Najeeb Hamid Jung, a former IPS officer and former Lieutenant Governor of Delhi; Roop Rekha Verma, former vice chancellor and professor of philosophy; Muhammad Adeeb, former Rajya Sabha MP and president of Indian Muslims for Civil Rights; and Harsh Mander, former IAS officer and social activist.
