The Supreme Court has held that fraternity is a foundational constitutional value essential for national unity and social cohesion, and that no individual — including public figures holding high constitutional office — can target any community on the basis of religion, language, caste or region. The Court further said that both State and non-State actors are prohibited from vilifying or denigrating communities through any medium, including speeches, memes, cartoons or visual art.
The observations were made by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in a separate judgment while dealing with a plea seeking a stay on the release of the upcoming Netflix crime thriller Ghooskhor Pandat. A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan had, on February 19, disposed of the plea after taking on record an affidavit filed by filmmaker Neeraj Pandey and observing that the controversy was expected to reach a quietus.
In his 39-page judgment, Justice Bhuyan emphasised that the Preamble identifies fraternity as one of the solemn objectives of the Constitution.
He observed that promoting fraternity assures “the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation” and requires citizens to cultivate a sense of brotherhood irrespective of caste, religion or language.
“Thus, cultivating a sense of brotherhood and respecting fellow citizens irrespective of caste, religion or language is a constitutional dharma each one of us must follow,” the judgment stated.
The Court held that it is “constitutionally impermissible” for anyone, whether State or non-State actors, to denigrate any community through any medium.
“It is constitutionally impermissible for anybody, be it the State or non-state actors, through any medium, such as, speeches, memes, cartoons, visual arts etc. to vilify and denigrate any community,” Justice Bhuyan wrote.
The judgment added that targeting a community on grounds of religion, language, caste or region would violate the Constitution and that this principle applies with greater force to persons holding high constitutional offices who have taken an oath to uphold constitutional values.
Justice Bhuyan also discussed the scope of Article 19, noting that liberty of thought and expression is one of the Constitution’s core ideals and is guaranteed as a fundamental right.
At the same time, the Court said that the reasonable restrictions under Article 19 must remain reasonable and cannot be “fanciful and oppressive.”
“The reasonable restriction provided for in Article 19 must remain reasonable and not fanciful and oppressive. Article 19 cannot be allowed to overshadow the substantive rights under Article 19 including the right to freedom of speech and expression,” the judgment stated.
The bench disposed of the petition seeking a stay on the film’s release after recording the filmmaker’s affidavit and expressed the expectation that the dispute would stand resolved.
The judgment, however, proceeded to lay down broader constitutional observations on fraternity, dignity, and the limits of speech that targets communities.
