Hate speech PIL ‘targets’ BJP CMs: Supreme Court | India News
New Delhi: The SC on Tuesday criticized 12 ’eminent’ persons who together filed a PIL “targeting” chief ministers of BJP-ruled states while seeking framing of guidelines to restrain constitutional activists and bureaucrats from violating fidelity to constitutional ethics. Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Kapil Sibal told a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices BV Nagarathna and Jayamalya Bagchi that the country’s environment has become toxic and “only SC can and will remedy it.”However, the CJI-led bench was quick to point out that the petition had selectively named individuals while highlighting the issue. “This petition is certainly targeted at specific individuals as it leaves out others who regularly engage in such hateful speech. Applicants should not create the impression that it is directed at specific individuals.The petitioners, including Roop Rekha Verma, Mohammad Adeep, Harsh Mander, Najeeb Jung, Jan Dayal and Ashok Kumar Sharma, cited alleged hate speech by Himanta Biswa Sharma, Yogi Adityanath, Devendra Fadnavis, Pushkar Singh Dhami, Ananthkumar Hegde and Giriraj Singh, all of whom belong to certain factions of the BJP.“Come up with a neutral and unbiased plea. The issue is important. Ultimately, there should be moderation in speech from all sides. We want to say that all political party workers must be aware of constitutional ethics and practice moderation in their speech, and any guidelines should be applicable across the board,” said the CJI.The bench said there are political parties who shamelessly give speeches based on their communal ideology and openly express hatred. “You haven’t cited an example from the other side.”When Sibal said he would delete all references to individuals in the petition, the bench responded that the PIL would be heard after necessary amendments.Justice Nagarathna said, “Leaders of political parties must cultivate a sense of brotherhood. Courts can order. But the remedy lies in political parties and democratic institutions that adhere to constitutional values and ethics.” Justice Nagarathna added, “The source of speech is the thought process. Can a person’s thought process be changed or restricted by a court order? What about freedom of speech?”Justice Bagchi told Sibal, “This is a vague petition. Instead of it being a populist exercise, let it be a constructive constitutional exercise. The clamor of politics should not dictate the filing of a PIL.”Sibal sought two weeks’ time to amend the PIL.The petitioners’ two prayers read as to the fundamental duties of a citizen: a) declaration that public speech by constitutional officers or holders of public office is subject to constitutional morality and should not violate the fundamental rights of others; b) Formulate guidelines for the conduct of public discourse by constitutional functionaries and bureaucrats to ensure fidelity to constitutional ethics, without prior restraint or imposition of censorship.
