Political Leaders Must Foster Fraternity In Country; Elections Must Be Fought On Mutual Respect : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday orally observed that political parties must foster fraternity in the country, and that all political parties must follow constitutional morality and fight elections on the basis of mutual respect.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by nine individuals seeking guidelines to prevent 'Constitutionally unbecoming' speech by persons who hold Constitutional offices. The petition was filed in the wake of recent speeches of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and a video posted by BJP Assam which sparked controversies after they were precieved as targeting a specific community.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioners, submitted, "We need to do something. Only your lordships can do something. This is becoming very toxic. This petition is not qua any individual."

CJI Kant said that the petition is "definitely targeted against a particular individual(Sarma)" as it has references only to his speeches. Sibal said that he was not seeking any particular relief against Sarma, and undertook to delete the references to him from the petition, and urged the Court to examine the larger issue.

CJI Kant however acknowledged that the petitioners are "eminent persons" and said that the Court respected them and the seriousness of the issue raised by them. The CJI further said that Justice Nagarathna's judgment in the Kaushal Kishore case has addressed the issue.

Sibal however pressed that the "Court must do something." The CJI suggested that the present petition be withdrawn and a fresh petition be filed focusing only on the Constitutional principles. "Let the petitioners not create an impression that they are against a particular party or individual," the CJI said.

When Sibal clarified that the petitioners are not seeking relief against any particular person, CJI Surya Kant said that the petitioners have "chosen some individuals selectively, conveniently ignoring others." "This is not acceptable; they should be fair," CJI added.

Sibal agreed to modify the petition. The CJI said that the bench is waiting for a properly filed petition raising the issue. "We are inclined to entertain the petition. We are eagerly waiting that somebody will come before us objectively and with impartiality," CJI Kant said.

Justice Nagarathna then commented, "there should be restraint from all sides." "Absolutely, without doubt," Sibal concurred.

Sibal said that the issue was that before the code of conduct is declared, some problematic speeches are made, which get circulated online even after the code of conduct is declared. The Election Commission will not act since the speeches were made before the elections were declared. Sibal said that there should be some guidelines to the media and online platforms in that regard.

CJI Kant said that, yesterday, while considering other petitions seeking FIR against Himanta Biswa Sarma, he had called for restraint on the part of politicians. "Yesterday, the first observation made by us was that we would like to impress upon all the political parties - please follow the principles of constitutional morality, constitutional values, mutual respect, self respect. Based on ideological principles, you fight. But with respect. We are a 75-year-old mature democracy. You don't expect people to behave like this. But that should be applied uniformly across the board. That is what we expect," CJI said.

Sibal said principles must be laid down for all political parties.

"Political leaders must ultimately foster fraternity in the country," Justice Nagarathna said.

The CJI said that the issue was very serious, but the petition was casually drafted. Justice Nagarathna wondered, even if guidelines are laid down, will they be complied with? Sibal cited the example of the 'Vishakha guidelines' which governed the field till the POSH Act was enacted.

"Before the speech, comes the thought. How can we control the thought?" Justice Nagarathna asked. While thoughts cannot be controlled, Sibal said that there can be consequences attached for actions. Justice Nagarathna said that it was necessary to "erase the thoughts".

Ultimately, accepting Sibal's request, the bench adjourned the matter for two weeks. In the meanwhile, Sibal said that a new petition will be filed.

Notably, yesterday, the Court asked another set of petitioners, who approached it under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking action against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for offences related to hate speech, to approach the Gauhati High Court.

The present petition was filed by a group of twelve citizens, including former civil servants, diplomats, academicians, researchers, entrepreneurs, and members of civil society.

The petitioners referred to the recent comments of Assam CM on 'Miya Muslims'. It is stated that the CM has previously termed citizens belonging to one community as responsible for rising prices of vegetables, causing "love jihad' and even 'flood jihad'. The petitioners allege that CM also went to the extent of saying that he wanted to remove four to five lakh voters belonging to that religious group from the electoral rolls.

Similarly, the issue of unconstitutional speeches by other high public offices has also been highlighted. It has been stated that the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand continues to make repeated reference to "land jihad" and "love jihad". The Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister uses derogatory terms referring to supporters of the Urdu language. The Union Ministers and senior executive officials have often termed Muslims as "infiltrators", and "foreign sympathisers", and the National Security Advisor exhorted citizens to “avenge history”

What Reliefs Were Sought? 

The petitioners have prayed for a declaration that such public speeches, when made in their official or quasi-official authority, must be subject to constitutional morality and must conform to values of equality, fraternity, secularism and standards of Article 14 and 21.

It has also asked the Supreme Court to lay down appropriate guidelines to govern public speeches by constitutional functionaries, without imposing any restraint on their right to free speech.

Petitioners include Dr Roop Rekha Verma, former Vice Chancellor and Professor of Philosophy; Mohammad Adeeb, former member of Rajya Sabha and the President of Indian Muslims for Civil Rights; Harsh Mander, former officer of the Indian Administrative Service, a writer, and a social activist.

It also includes Najeeb Hamid Jung, a retired IAS, and former Lieutenant Governor of the NCT Delhi; Dr. John Dayal, is a journalist and Secretary-general of the All India Christian Council; Daya Singh, actively engaged in social, religious work; Aditi Mehta, former IAS; Suresh K. Goel, former IFS; Ashok Kumar Sharma, former IFS and, Subodh Lal, former officer of Indian Postal Service (IPoS).

Case Details : ROOP REKHA VERMA AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS| W.P.(C) No. 199/2026