The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday urged political leaders across the country to foster fraternity and exercise restraint in their public discourse, while declining to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking specific guidelines on political speeches.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice B V Nagarathna, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard petitions—including one filed by academician Roop Rekha Verma and others—related to alleged hate speeches or statements by constitutional functionaries and political leaders that purportedly undermine constitutional values, fraternity, and equal citizenship.
The court emphasized that political leaders bear a responsibility to promote harmony and uphold constitutional morality in a mature democracy over 75 years old. "Political leaders must foster fraternity in the country," Justice Nagarathna observed during the hearing. She added that there must be restraint on all sides, questioning the practicality of court-imposed guidelines: "Suppose we lay down guidelines... who will follow it?" The bench highlighted that speech originates from thought, stressing the need to address underlying mindsets rather than solely relying on judicial directives.
The Supreme Court declined to proceed with the PIL in its current form, noting that it appeared to target specific individuals or parties rather than addressing the issue objectively across the political spectrum. The bench directed the petitioners—reportedly 12 in number—to file a fresh, amended plea that more comprehensively demonstrates violations of existing safeguards by political parties and functionaries, without selectively singling out particular figures.
Chief Justice Kant reportedly remarked on the broader challenge of implementation, even if guidelines were issued, and reiterated that political parties should self-regulate to align with constitutional ethos, mutual respect, and values that strengthen national unity.
The observations come amid ongoing debates over inflammatory rhetoric in public speeches, particularly in the context of recent controversies involving statements by high-profile leaders. The court has previously laid down principles in related cases but expressed reluctance to repeatedly legislate on every instance, underscoring that primary responsibility lies with political actors to foster an environment of fraternity and constitutional alignment.
The matter highlights the judiciary's cautious approach to regulating political speech while reinforcing core constitutional principles enshrined in the Preamble, including fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation. The petitioners have been given liberty to approach the court afresh with a reframed plea.
For More News Updates Follow Us On www.tconews.in
