SC declines plea on 'constitutional morality', suggests broader code: 'Don't target select individuals'

The court suggested that if needed, a broader code of conduct for public figures, similar to that governing public servants, could be considered.

• Supreme Court rejects plea on public officials' conduct
• Petitioners allowed to withdraw and file a broader petition
• Court urged uniform application of constitutional morality

Did our AI summary help?

The Supreme Court of India, on Tuesday, refused to entertain a petition filed by 12 individuals, including Roop Rekha Verma and former Delhi Lieutenant Governor Najib Jung, seeking guidelines to ensure public officials adhere to constitutional morality.

The plea alleged discriminatory remarks by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.

A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the petition appeared to single out select individuals. "The petitioners are eminent persons. We respect them. Ask them not to target any particular individual. Only selected individuals. Others very conveniently ignored. It is not fair," the CJI observed.

The court suggested that if needed, a broader code of conduct for public figures, similar to that governing public servants, could be considered. “We would like to impress upon all political parties the importance of constitutional morality, values, and mutual respect. These principles must be applied uniformly,” the CJI said.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal sought to withdraw the plea, saying a more comprehensive petition would be filed. The court permitted the withdrawal.

In a related case, the apex court criticised petitioners seeking an FIR against Sarma over a viral video allegedly showing him firing a rifle towards members of a particular community.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi flagged a “disturbing trend,” remarking, “Whenever there is an election in some state, this court becomes a political battleground.”

Declining direct intervention, the court asked petitioners to approach the Gauhati High Court. “Please come to us via the constitutionally prescribed route,” it said.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi argued that intervention was warranted, alleging Sarma was a “habitual offender” whose remarks had nationwide impact.

Separate pleas by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Annie Raja of the Communist Party of India also sought FIRs and an SIT probe over alleged hate speech.

The Supreme Court, however, maintained that established legal remedies must be exhausted and issued no immediate directions.