The Preamble to our Constitution protects not just secularism, justice, liberty and equality. It enshrines fraternity—a value too often overlooked, but was central to the Supreme Court’s recent reflections in the Roop Rekha Verma case. The court’s observations at a hearing turned the spotlight on the moral obligations of public office holders. Chief Justice Surya Kant reminded leaders that they must uphold constitutional values and, importantly, act with mutual respect. Justice B V Nagarathna stressed that leaders bear a duty to promote unity and fraternity. She also reflected on the limits of judicial oversight, raising a core issue: “Origin of speech is thought. How do you control thought?” That question framed the court’s dilemma. The petition had sought guidelines to regulate growing instances of hate speech by constitutional functionaries that allegedly undermine equality, secularism and fraternity. The court declined to single out individuals, and emphasised systemic responsibility instead. The message was clear: law cannot regulate thought and restraint cannot be imposed from outside, but must arise within those who wield authority.
For India, the stakes are unmistakable. Every word a leader speaks carries weight. Myriad instances establish that rhetoric that stigmatises communities or fuels division has shaped sectarian behaviour, deepened intolerance and often spilt into violence. This is not only a legal problem but a civic one, too. Political parties must cultivate ethical discipline in discourse. Citizens must demand accountability. Institutions must apply laws impartially to prevent communal polarisation and targeting. Past rulings reinforce this framework. In Abhiram Singh (2017), the Supreme Court held that appeals to religion, caste or community for electoral gain amount to corrupt practices. Several judicial directions stressing prompt action against hate speech further underline that communal harmony cannot survive indifference. The principle is clear, yet Justice Nagarathna’s reflection underscores a deeper truth: legal prohibitions are necessary but not sufficient. The source of speech—thought itself—must align with constitutional values.
The court’s observations are both a warning and a guide. Democracy depends on leaders who exercise restraint, foster fraternity and respect constitutional morality. Without internal discipline and collective vigilance, words can fracture the social fabric, law becomes reactive and fraternity remains aspirational. The court is urging India to act not only through statutes, but through conscience, thought and example. Words have power. Used carelessly, they can tear society apart.