India Has Potential To Influence Global Approaches To Governance In Diverse Societies: Justice P.K. Mishra

Justice Mishra was delivering the keynote address at the inaugural session of the National Council Meeting of the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad.

The theme of the event held in Gujarat was ‘Fraternity — Spirit of the Constitution’. Justice Sameer Dave of the Gujarat High Court was also present at the event.

Justice Mishra's spoke about the Supreme Court’s Judgments that have upheld the Constitutional principle of fraternity, the challenges to upholding it and the importance of collective responsibility.

“Countries worldwide are watching India’s unique experiment in managing diversity through constitutional means. Our success in upholding fraternity while respecting diversity can serve as a model for other multicultural societies. By leading through example, India has the potential to influence global approaches to governance in diverse societies.” Justice Mishra said.

Stressing that fraternity is "not a destination but a journey — a journey toward a more just, inclusive, and harmonious society", Justice Mishra said, "As custodians of the Constitution, we bear the solemn responsibility of nurturing this spirit in all that we do."

Citing precedents of the Supreme Court that have upheld fraternity in various spheres of society, Justice Mishra said, “In sum, fraternity in constitutional jurisprudence is not a static concept but a dynamic principle that evolves with societal needs and judicial interpretation. It reinforces the interconnectedness of justice, liberty, and equality, while promoting a sense of collective responsibility and solidarity. As custodians of the Constitution, the judiciary has a critical role in breathing life into this ideal, ensuring that fraternity becomes a lived reality for all citizens”

Challenges in Upholding Fraternity

Referring to the rise of identity politics in the world, Justice Mishra stressed, “A major challenge to fraternity is the increasing use of divisive rhetoric based on religion, caste, and ethnicity. When individuals or groups promote narratives that pit one community against another, it weakens the sense of unity envisioned by the Constitution.”

Explaining the pitfalls of employing divisive rhetoric, he cautioned, “Divisive rhetoric creates mistrust among communities, leading to the spread of stereotypes and misunderstandings. These tensions can escalate into social unrest. Moreover, when political leaders use social identities for electoral gains, it deepens these divisions, making it harder to build a collective sense of belonging.”

Another challenge, he said, is the rise of digital technology and platforms which are “often misused to spread hate speech, misinformation, and divisive content.” He added, “The anonymity provided by digital platforms emboldens people to engage in abusive behavior without facing consequences. This has led to cyberbullying, targeted harassment, and online propaganda, all of which polarize society further.”

Collective responsibility

“Fraternity is not a passive ideal; it is an active commitment,” Justice Mishra said, calling upon all to stand against injustice, challenge prejudice, and promote peace and unity in our communities.

He insisted, “It is through this collective effort that we strengthen the foundations of our democracy and pave the way for a brighter, more inclusive future. When we live by the principle of fraternity, we ensure that the values of justice, equality, and freedom endure for generations to come."

He was of the view that fraternity is a shared responsibility that involves every citizen, institution, and leader in society and requires a multi-faceted approach and the participation of multiple stakeholders.

On the legal side of things, he said, “Laws should be crafted not just to protect rights but to ensure social cohesion and address systemic inequalities. By prioritizing these values, the legal framework of the nation can provide the foundation for a society built on fraternity.”

The legal fraternity has a “unique responsibility to uphold and promote the spirit of fraternity”, reasoning that lawyers and judges are not just interpreters of the law but also custodians of constitutional values. “Through our work, we have the power to bridge divides, address injustices, and build a more cohesive society.” he said.

He suggested the judiciary to play to play a proactive role in safeguarding the principles of fraternity. “We can prioritize mediation and reconciliation where appropriate, write judgments that are not only legally sound but also explained in accessible language, and ensure that court procedures themselves reflect fraternal values. Our role extends beyond dispute resolution to the active promotion of constitutional values through our conduct and decisions.” Justice Mishra said.

Apart from this, he said that educational institutions and civil society organisations and the media “must all work together to spread the message of fraternity and encourage mutual understanding."

“By incorporating lessons on empathy, solidarity, and constitutional values into their curriculums, we can inspire a new generation of citizens who prioritize community and compassion.” he stated.

Fraternity in Constitutional Jurisprudence

Justice Mishra noted that the Preamble to the Constitution proclaims fraternity with a specific commitment: "assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.” He said this “dual emphasis” reflects the essence of our constitutional ethos—balancing individual dignity with national solidarity. “The idea of fraternity, thus, is the glue that binds the other core principles of justice, liberty, and equality.”

He asserted that the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence over the decades has consistently reinforced the vision of fraternity. As an example, he cited the Judgment in Shri Raghunathrao Ganpatrao v. Union of India (1994) , where the Court invoked fraternity to reject claims for special privileges by erstwhile princes.

He cited State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) where the Court recognised caste-based discrimination, adding that the Judgment “underscores how equality and fraternity must work hand in hand to dismantle systemic oppression.”

“Additionally, recent cases addressing economic inequality, such as the validation of reservation policies for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2020), reflect the role of fraternity in bridging socio-economic divides.” he said.

Emphasising the connected principles of fraternity and secularism, Justice Mishra noted that in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Court had held secularism to be part of the the basic structure doctrine, and fraternity ensures that secularism is not confined to constitutional text but is realized in the lived experiences of citizens. “The Court observed that mutual respect among religious communities is essential to uphold the secular fabric of the nation, highlighting that fraternity transcends tolerance and promotes positive engagement.” he said.

In Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018), “the Court issued guidelines to curb lynching, emphasizing fraternity as a safeguard against majoritarianism. The judgment highlighted the judiciary’s role in combating communal violence and promoting harmony.” he added.

He also cited the Judgment in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) which granted legal recognition to transgender individuals and “illustrate how justice, equality, and fraternity together advance the constitutional goal of an inclusive society." he said.

The right to free speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution is another domain where the principle of fraternity has found resonance, he said. In this regard, the Court’s Judgment in Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) was cited, where the Court “emphasized that hate speech undermines the dignity of individuals and fractures societal harmony, which in turn threatens the constitutional value of fraternity." Justice Mishra stressed.

The Court has also “consistently highlighted” the connection between fraternity and individual dignity, Justice Mishra said, citing the Judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) which decriminalization of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. “The judgment emphasized that fraternity demands acceptance and respect for diverse identities, fostering a society where everyone can live with dignity.” he said.