Hate speech PIL ‘targets’ BJP CMs: Supreme Court | India News

NEW DELHI: SC on Tuesday criticised 12 ’eminent’ persons who together filed a PIL “targeting” CMs of BJP-governed states for alleged hate speeches while making a plea for framing guidelines to restrain constitutional functionaries and bureaucrats from breaching fidelity to constitutional morality. Appearing for petitioners, senior advocate Kapil Sibal told a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi that the country’s atmosphere had become toxic and “it is only the SC which can and should remedy it.”However, the CJI-led bench was quick to point out that the petition had selectively named individuals while highlighting the problem. “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 petitioners, including Roop Rekha Verma, Mohd Adeep, Harsh Mander, Najeeb Jung, John Dayal and Ashok Kumar Sharma had cited the alleged hate speeches of Himanta Biswa Sarma, Yogi Adityanath, Devendra Fadnavis, Pushkar Singh Dhami, Anantkumar Hegde and Giriraj Singh, all of whom belong to BJP, in addition to certain remarks by some bureaucrats.”Come with an impartial and neutral petition. The issue is important. Ultimately, there must be restraint in speech from all sides. We would like to say all political party functionaries must be mindful of constitutional morality and exercise restraint in their speeches, and any guideline should be applicable across the board,” said the CJI.The bench said there are political parties which brazenly make speeches based on their communal ideology and openly profess hatred. “You have not cited a single example from the other side.”When Sibal said he would delete all references to individuals in the petition, the bench responded that it would hear the PIL after the necessary amendments are carried out.Justice Nagarathna said, “Political party leaders must foster fraternity. Courts can pass orders. But the remedy lies in political parties and democratic institutions living up to constitutional values and morality.” Justice Nagarathna added, “The origin of speech is the thought process. Can by court order the thought process of a person be altered or restricted? What about free speech?”Justice Bagchi told Sibal, “It is such a vague petition. Instead of it being a populist exercise, let it be a constructive constitutional exercise. Humdrum of politics should not dictate the filing of the PIL.”Sibal sought two weeks to amend the PIL.The two prayers of the petitioners read like fundamental duties of a citizen: a) declaration that public speeches of constitutional functionaries or holders of public office are subject to constitutional morality and should not violate fundamental rights of others; b) formulation of guidelines to govern public speech by constitutional functionaries and bureaucrats to ensure fidelity to constitutional morality, without imposing prior restraint or censorship.