NEW DELHI: “Political leaders must foster fraternity in the country,” the Supreme Court of India orally observed on Tuesday while hearing a writ petition filed by 12 petitioners seeking directions to curb “constitutionally unbecoming” speeches by persons holding constitutional offices, along with guidelines on political discourse.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices B V Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi, declined to entertain the petition. However, it suggested that the plea be withdrawn and a fresh, properly drafted petition be filed focusing solely on constitutional principles.
“Let the petitioners not create an impression that they are against a particular party or individual,” the bench observed.
The petition, filed by a group of citizens including former civil servants, diplomats, academicians, researchers and members of civil society, sought guidelines for politicians as well as the media while reporting or amplifying speeches that allegedly undermine fraternity and constitutional values.
The court acknowledged that the petitioners were “eminent persons” and said it respected both them and the seriousness of the issue. However, it noted that the issue had already been addressed in a judgment delivered by Justice Nagarathna in the Kaushal Kishore case.
“The political parties must foster fraternity in the country and follow constitutional morality, contesting elections on the basis of mutual respect,” the court said. During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the situation was becoming “very toxic” and urged the court to intervene. He clarified that the petition was not directed against any individual.
The Chief Justice, however, said the court was awaiting a properly drafted petition that raises the issue objectively and impartially. “We are eagerly waiting that somebody will come before us with objectivity,” he remarked.
Justice Nagarathna observed that “there should be restraint from all sides,” to which Sibal agreed. The court noted that while the issue raised was serious, the petition appeared to be casually drafted. Accepting Sibal’s request, the bench adjourned the matter for two weeks to allow the filing of a revised petition.
The petitioners have sought a declaration that public speeches made in official or quasi-official capacity must adhere to constitutional morality and values such as equality, fraternity and secularism, in line with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.