Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Guidelines To Curb 'Constitutionally Unbecoming' Speeches By Ministers, Constitutional Functionaries

A group of twelve citizens, including former civil servants, diplomats, academicians, researchers, entrepreneurs, and members of civil society, have approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, flagging the speeches by the Chief Minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma, and other constitutional functionaries as "derogatory and exclusionary."The petitioners have 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”The petitioners have flagged that such speeches, which may fall short of the framework of hate speech offences, have a cumulative effect of eroding constitutional morality and must not remain unchecked. They have sought guidelines from the Supreme Court in this regard.Normalisation of constitutionality unbecoming speeches in absence of guidelinesThe petitioners have sought that the standards of constitutional morality, which operate as a restraint on the exercise of powers by those holding constitutional positions, should be applied to speeches of constitutional functionaries and holders of high public offices, regardless of their political inclination. "Holders of public office are not ordinary speakers. Their words carry the imprimatur of the State, influence administrative action, shape public perception, and can have a chilling or exclusionary effect on vulnerable communities, even in the absence of direct incitement or hate speech."Reference has been made to the Supreme Court's decisions in Navtej Singh Johar v UOI(2018), Joseph Shine v Union of India(2019) and Government of NCT of Delhi v UOI(2018) on how constitutional morality must prevail over popular sentiments.The petitioners have emphasised the absence of standards or guidelines regulating speeches of high constitutional authorities, despite having demonstrable impact on preambular values of equality, fraternity, secularism and public trust in constitutional institutions. The resultant is the "normalisation of constitutionality unbecoming" speeches of holders of high public offices, the petitioners have averred."It is submitted that the immediate and proximate cause for the present Petition is the normalisation of constitutionally unbecoming speeches by holders of high public offices including, inter alia, the sitting Chief Minister of Assam, who has variously made statements against a particular community namely Muslims branding them as “Miya Muslims”, openly exhorting citizens to discriminate against one another, and then seeking to justify it as if it is sanctioned by this Hon'ble Court. He openly said he was encouraging people to “trouble” members of this community so they would “leave Assam,” including suggesting actions like paying less amount to a rickshaw puller so as to make them uncomfortable.""These statements, emanating from sitting Chief Ministers and holders of high public offices, exemplify how constitutional and legal authority is being used to legitimise discriminatory hostility, while in some cases, simultaneously misattributing judicial sanction to justify conduct antithetical to constitutional morality."Absence of guidelines have allowed discriminatory speechesThe petitioners have highlighted the absence of guidelines or a framework on how constitutional morality applies to the public speeches of constitutional functionaries. It is this vacuum that has allowed discriminatory and derogatory speech, short of criminal speech, to proliferate unchecked. Further, the petitioners have submitted that many of these speeches and references to allegedly derogatory terms may not cross the statutory threshold of hate speech, but it does have a cumulative effect of eroding constitutional morality and India's fraternity."They erode fraternity, stigmatise entire communities, legitimise discriminatory governance, and weaken public confidence in the State's commitment to equal citizenship. When such speech proceeds unchecked from the highest constitutional and executive offices, it results in a profound failure of constitutional morality — not through isolated excess, but through repetition,endorsement, and institutional silence. It is this systemic...

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Guidelines To Curb 'Constitutionally Unbecoming' Speeches By Ministers, Constitutional Functionaries

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

The petitioners sought directions to ensure that comments by holders of Constitutional Officers conform with Constitutional morality.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Guidelines To Curb 'Constitutionally Unbecoming' Speeches By Ministers, Constitutional Functionaries

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

The petitioners sought directions to ensure that comments by holders of Constitutional Officers conform with Constitutional morality.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers