Supreme Court on Tuesday rebuked a group of 12 public figures who moved a public interest litigation seeking action against chief ministers of states governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party over alleged hate speeches, signalling judicial unease at what it described as a selective and politically targeted plea.
A Bench led by Justice Surya Kant observed that the petition appeared to single out constitutional functionaries from specific states without placing a broader factual matrix before the court. The judges questioned why the plea confined itself to chief ministers from BJP-ruled states when concerns about hate speech and constitutional propriety have surfaced across the political spectrum. The court indicated that any judicial intervention in such matters must rest on uniform principles rather than selective invocation.
The petitioners, described in court as “eminent persons” drawn from civil society and academia, sought the framing of guidelines to restrain constitutional authorities and senior bureaucrats from breaching what they termed constitutional morality. They argued that public statements by certain chief ministers had contributed to social polarisation and warranted judicial scrutiny. The plea requested directions to ensure adherence to constitutional values and to evolve a framework to prevent inflammatory rhetoric by holders of high office.
During the hearing, the Bench underscored that constitutional morality is a foundational principle but cautioned against converting the court into an arena for political contestation. Justice Kant reportedly remarked that the judiciary cannot be invited to examine isolated statements in a vacuum, particularly where existing statutory mechanisms and criminal law remedies are available to address hate speech. The court also pointed to earlier pronouncements in which it had called for restraint in public discourse by all public representatives, regardless of party affiliation.
The exchange reflects a broader judicial debate on the limits of public interest litigation. Over the past decade, the Supreme Court has both expanded and recalibrated the scope of PILs, emphasising that such petitions must be filed in good faith and not serve partisan ends. The court has on several occasions warned against what it termed “publicity interest litigation” and insisted on strict scrutiny of locus standi and motive.
Legal experts note that the issue of hate speech has repeatedly reached the apex court. In earlier proceedings concerning alleged inflammatory speeches by political leaders, the court expressed concern over delays in prosecution and called upon governments to act swiftly under existing penal provisions. However, it stopped short of laying down fresh guidelines, observing that the statutory framework under the Indian Penal Code and other laws provides sufficient tools if implemented effectively.
The present plea sought a more expansive judicial role, urging the court to define parameters for constitutional functionaries and bureaucrats in the context of public speech. Petitioners argued that holders of public office bear an elevated duty of fidelity to the Constitution and must avoid rhetoric that undermines fraternity and equality. They contended that unchecked statements erode institutional credibility and social harmony.
Counsel appearing for the respondents countered that the petition was misconceived and politically motivated. They argued that singling out chief ministers from one political formation amounted to selective targeting and that any guidelines framed by the court would have to apply uniformly to all elected representatives. The Bench appeared to echo this concern, indicating that judicial directions cannot be tailored to particular states or parties.
The court’s intervention comes against the backdrop of heightened scrutiny over political speech in an era of instant communication and amplified social media reach. Observers point out that allegations of hate speech have surfaced in multiple states and across party lines, prompting calls from civil society groups for consistent enforcement of existing laws. At the same time, constitutional scholars caution that overly broad judicial guidelines risk encroaching upon legislative prerogatives and the domain of free political expression.
Tuesday’s hearing did not culminate in a final order, with the Bench indicating that it would examine whether the petition satisfies the threshold requirements for a PIL. The judges stressed that any adjudication must be anchored in concrete facts and consistent standards. They signalled that the court’s role is to uphold constitutional principles without entering the political thicket.
