The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking judicial guidelines for political speeches and media reporting of statements allegedly affecting constitutional fraternity, while observing that political leaders must promote harmony in the country. The Court asked the petitioners to file a fresh, objective plea on the existing legal framework and alleged violations.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi said a petition targeting “selectively chosen few” individuals would not be acceptable and emphasised that any challenge must be even-handed and based on existing legal guardrails.
The PIL, filed by former Lucknow University professor Roop Rekha Verma and 11 others, was argued by senior advocate Kapil Sibal. It sought court-framed guidelines to regulate political speeches and the role of media in amplifying statements that allegedly vitiate fraternity and constitutional values. The plea was moved in the backdrop of alleged hate speeches by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
At the outset, Sibal submitted that the public discourse had become “toxic” and urged the Court to frame accountability norms for political speech. He clarified that the relief was not directed against any particular individual.
The CJI, however, disagreed, observing that the petition appeared to single out leaders from a particular political party. “Withdraw this. File a simple plea on what conditional guardrails have been laid down and how political parties are violating them,” the bench told the petitioners, adding that the Court was willing to examine an objective challenge.
“We are inclined to entertain such a petition. We are eagerly waiting for someone with objectivity to come and file one,” the CJI said.
Justice Nagarathna remarked that political leaders must foster fraternity and exercise restraint. She questioned the efficacy of court-framed guidelines, asking, “Suppose we lay down guidelines… Who will follow them?” and added that while speech originates in thought, societal efforts must encourage thoughts aligned with constitutional values.
Justice Bagchi noted that the Supreme Court has already laid down several principles on hate speech and free expression, and that implementation remains a challenge. He also observed that responsibility lies with political parties for the conduct of their members.
During the hearing, Sibal argued that the Election Commission’s Model Code of Conduct (MCC) operates only during elections and that speeches made prior to the MCC period continue to circulate on social media even after it comes into force. He sought guidelines on the responsibility of media in such situations.
The CJI responded that public servants are already governed by service rules, including the All India Services Rules, and cautioned against casually drafted pleas. The bench emphasised that the Court can issue directions, but enforcement depends on authorities and institutions.
The matter came a day after the CJI-led bench declined to entertain petitions seeking action against the Assam Chief Minister over a viral video. On Tuesday, the Court reiterated that any plea on political speech must be broad-based and not directed at specific individuals.
The Court permitted the petitioners to withdraw the present PIL and granted liberty to file a fresh petition raising an objective challenge regarding existing legal safeguards and their alleged violation.
