Political Leaders Must Ultimately Foster Fraternity: Supreme Court While Hearing Plea Seeking Guidelines On Statements Made by Constitutional Functionaries

The Supreme Court, during the hearing of a petition filed by a group of twelve citizens seeking guidelines on statements and remarks made by Constitutional Functionaries, has remarked that the political leaders must ultimately foster fraternity in the country.

The Court emphasized that the true health of a democracy depends more on "consciousness" than on court orders.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by a group of twelve citizens, including former civil servants, diplomats, academicians, researchers, entrepreneurs, and members of civil society, seeking guidelines on statements/remarks made by Constitutional Functionaries which do not comport with constitutional morality.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked the Petitioner to file a proper petition and listed the matter after two weeks.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and AOR Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi appeared on behalf of the Petitioners.

The plea was filed after there was an alleged pattern of hate speeches delivered by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, which target, terrorise, and instigate hostility and overt violence against the Muslim community residing in the State of Assam

Sibal submitted, "Suppose someone makes a speech before the model code of conduct comes in...when the code of conduct comes in, these speeches will be repeated. Now, what are the responsibilities of the media in situations like this? What are the mechanisms that we must put in place to ensure that the atmosphere, the environment in a democratic country, doesn't get vitiated? What are the responsibilities? What are the systems that we can put in place?"

Chief Justice Kant said, "That's why...yesterday if you were here...the first observation we made...that we would like to impress upon all the political parties...Please follow the principle of constitutional morality, constitutional values, mutual respect, self-respect...So, if you are 75, more than 75 years old now, matured... we do not expect the people to behave like that."

He added, "When you are talking of the public figures on one hand and public servants on the other. The public servants are absolutely bunked down. They have no business violating anything. But please make a reference to the fact that there are already All India Service Rules...There is a wealth of law, the statute, the rules, mandatory rules, everything is there. Let us not go with a casually drafted...The issue is very serious."

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

Sibal submitted, "My prayer is only to have set up guidelines and mechanisms to ensure that people are warned that if this happens, then certain systems will be put in place."

"What about the constitution of the political party itself, when they apply for, that's what kind of code of conduct they should provide for their members or for their leaders? That is also a very serious issue", Chief Justice Kant remarked.

Justice Nagarathna added, "Assuming some guidelines are given by this court, the question is whether they will comply or not...Why can't there be self-restraint and regulation then?"

Sibal replied, "They will not. There will be no self-restraint by the media. Lordship knows that."

It was also submitted that the Petition does not seek to limit free speech or seek punishments for hate speech, which may be dealt with under the relevant law, but seeks guidelines, either on court's examination or through a dialogic exercise, for public officials, constitutional functionaries, and executive administrators to follow constitutional morality in their conduct and practice.

Justice Bagchi then said, "That is where the consciousness comes in. The political groups, the democratic groups, come into question, come into issue. A court can only pass orders. But the orders being infracted, and you say, creates a toxic atmosphere. It's only a remedy for situations after breaches occur. It's for the political entities, the democratic entities, to live up to the constitutional expectations."

Chief Justice Kant added, "You have the political party, you have the guts to have this kind of constitution and brazenly to come and fight the elections all over the country...Somebody will have to look into all these parties."

Sibal responded, "Now, there must be, in a situation like this, if the media wants to report this, then it must have a procedure within it. We must apply our mind and come to a conclusion, report it and then be liable."

The petitioners clarified that they are not seeking to punish "hate speech" (which is covered by other laws) or to limit free speech. Instead, they want the Court to establish guidelines for constitutional morality. They argued that while political parties may follow an ideology, those holding public office are bound by their Oath of Office to ensure fairness. In their view, discriminatory or derogatory language should be "impermissible" for anyone representing the State, even if it doesn't technically meet the criminal definition of hate speech.

"The origin of speech is thought. Now, how do you control thought? So, therefore, we should, you see, erase that kind of thought, which is contrary to our constitutional values in the first place", Justice Nagarathna remarked.

"May I request, take it up after two weeks. We will file those petitions separately", Sibal requested.

On February 17, the Supreme Court refused to entertain petitions seeking urgent legal action against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for the alleged communal speeches and asked the Petitioners to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

The Court on February 10, 2026, agreed to consider listing petitions filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) seeking urgent legal action against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.

Cause Title: Roop Rekha Verma v. Union of India [Diary No. 8343/2026].