Explained: This article explains the political background, key decisions, and possible outcomes related to Explained : Top court slams ‘humdrum of politics’ in hate speech pleas| India News and Its Impact and why it matters right now.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it was open to examining the larger issues of hate speech and the constitutional morality that ought to guide political parties and their leaders, but made it clear that it would not entertain “selective targeting” or allow such concerns to descend into the “humdrum of politics”.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justice BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a batch of pleas filed jointly by 12 individuals, including former bureaucrats, academicians and civil society members, seeking guidelines to regulate public speeches by constitutional functionaries in the backdrop of alleged hate remarks by Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the atmosphere in the country was becoming “toxic” and urged the court to step in. “My Lords must do something about it,” said Sibal, arguing that neither the Election Commission nor existing mechanisms adequately addressed hate speech outside the Model Code of Conduct period, particularly on social media.
But the bench repeatedly expressed reservations about the manner in which the petition had been framed and made repeated reference to just one individual.
“Our suggestion is this petition should be withdrawn and a simple petition should be filed about how political parties are brazenly violating constitutional norms,” said CJI Kant, as the judge objected to what he described as selective targeting. “With selectively chosen people and allegations, and other people ignored, this is not acceptable. They should be fair,” he added.
The CJI said the court was “inclined to entertain such a petition” provided it was objective and not directed against particular individuals. “We are eagerly waiting for someone with objectivity to come and file,” he remarked.
On Monday, the CJI-led bench had declined to entertain three separate petitions seeking action against Sarma over remarks allegedly targeting Muslims, asking the petitioners to approach the high court instead.
On Tuesday, however, the discussion broadened into a larger conversation on hate speech, political accountability and constitutional morality.
CJI Kant observed that public servants are already bound by service rules, including the All India Services Rules, and are expected to adhere to standards of conduct. “When you talk of public figures and public servants…public servants have to follow. But there are rules. Don’t go for casually drafted petitions,” he said, adding that one must follow the “boundary of constitutional morality”.
Justice Nagarathna questioned whether judicially crafted guidelines would necessarily be followed. “There has to be restraint on all sides. Political leaders must foster fraternity in the country. Suppose we lay down guidelines — who will follow it?” she asked. She added: “Origin of speech is thought. How do you control thought? Therefore, we should raise thoughts which are as per constitutional values.”
Justice Bagchi underscored that the court had already laid down principles in earlier judgments addressing hate speech. “From Kaushal Kishore to Amish Devgan (judgments), how many guidelines have we laid down. Responsibility lies with the political parties to implement as well,” he said, cautioning against vague pleadings.
“Such petitions, which are so vague, are not expected. That is what the CJI was saying. Let it not become a populist exercise but a contemplative constitutional exercise. The humdrum of politics cannot dim such important issues,” Justice Bagchi added.
At one point, the CJI said political parties themselves must respect constitutional values. “You have the political parties. You have the guts to have a Constitution and brazenly you want to come fight elections,” he remarked, emphasising mutual respect and constitutional morality.
As the bench repeatedly pointed out that the petition appeared to have been drafted “in great hurry”, Sibal sought two weeks’ time to modify it. The court agreed, effectively allowing the petitioners to recast their plea in broader, non-partisan terms.
Among the petitioners in the present case are Najeeb Hamid Jung, former IAS officer and ex-Lieutenant Governor of Delhi; Roop Rekha Verma, former vice-chancellor and professor of philosophy; Mohammad Adeeb, former Rajya Sabha MP and president of Indian Muslims for Civil Rights; and Harsh Mander, former IAS officer and social activist.