Supreme Court flags PIL for ‘targeting’ BJP chief ministers

Supreme Court of India

• Supreme Court criticises plea for targeting only BJP leaders
• Court urges petitioners to file a more balanced, neutral plea
• Guidelines on public speech must apply to all parties equally

Did our AI summary help?

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday criticised a group of 12 “eminent” citizens for filing a public interest litigation that it said appeared to selectively target chief ministers of BJP-ruled states over alleged hate speeches, even as the plea sought guidelines to restrain constitutional authorities and bureaucrats from breaching constitutional morality.

According to a report by The Times of India, the court said the issue raised was important but must be presented neutrally and impartially.

Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the country’s atmosphere had become “toxic” and that only the apex court could provide a remedy.

However, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi, observed that the petition singled out certain leaders while leaving out others who also make similar speeches.

“This petition is definitely targeting certain individuals, as it leaves out others who routinely make such hate speeches. Let the petitioners not create an impression that it is targeting certain individuals,” the bench said, urging the group to file a more balanced plea.

The petitioners had cited alleged remarks by several BJP leaders and some bureaucrats. The bench, however, stressed that any eventual guidelines on public speech must apply uniformly across political parties and offices.

“Ultimately, there must be restraint in speech from all sides,” the Chief Justice noted, adding that all political functionaries should remain mindful of constitutional morality.

Justice Nagarathna underlined that while courts can issue directions, the larger responsibility lies with political parties and democratic institutions to uphold constitutional values.

She also questioned whether judicial orders could alter a person’s thought process and flagged concerns around free speech. Justice Bagchi described the petition as vague and cautioned against turning constitutional litigation into a “populist exercise.”

When Sibal offered to remove references to specific individuals, the bench agreed to hear the matter after the amendments are carried out. He sought two weeks to revise the petition.

The plea sought two main directions: a declaration that public speeches by constitutional functionaries are subject to constitutional morality and must not infringe others' fundamental rights, and the framing of broad guidelines to govern such speech without imposing prior restraint or censorship.