- Supreme Court refused to hear petition targeting three Chief Ministers over hate speech
- Court asked petitioners to file a modified plea without naming specific individuals
- Justices emphasised need for constitutional morality and fairness in political discourse
Flagging "selective" selection of three Chief Ministers, the Supreme Court today refused to hear a petition for strict guidelines against hate speech by people in high constitutional posts. The court sought a modification in the petition, saying that it wants to impress upon all political parties the need for constitutional morality and mutual respect.
The petition referred to three Chief Ministers: Assam's Himanta Biswa Sarma, Uttar Pradesh's Yogi Adityanath and Uttarakhand's Pushkar Singh Dhami. All three are from the BJP. The petition was filed by a group of former bureaucrats, diplomats, academics, researchers, entrepreneurs, and civil society members.
It cited Sarma's recent comments on "Miya Muslims", a term used to refer to those who have migrated from Bangladesh. The petition mentioned Dhami's use of terms such as "land jihad" and "love jihad" and Adityanath's remarks on supporters of Urdu.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant asked Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, the petitioners' counsel, to return with a modified petition that does not name anyone.
"Our suggestion is this petition should be withdrawn and a simple petition should be filed about how political parties are brazenly violating it. With selectively chosen people and allegations and other people ignored, this is not acceptable, they should be fair. We are inclined to entertain such a petition; we are eagerly waiting for someone with objectivity," he said.
Justice BV Nagarathna questioned the lack of restraint by political parties and the media. "The questions is even if we issue guidelines how much will be implemented? The origin of speech is thought. How do you control thought? We must erase those thoughts which go against constitutional ethos," she said.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi said political parties have a role to play too. "Such petitions which are so vague is not expected. This is what CJI was saying. Let it not become a populist exercise but a contemplative constitutional excercise. The humdrum of politics cannot dim such important issues," he said.
In his argument, Sibal said the situation is becoming "toxic", and the court must intervene. "Election Commission of India doesn't deal with it because the model code of conduct is not there, but on social media, what are the responsibilities of the media? What are the systems we can put in?" The matter was adjourned as Sibal sought time to modify the plea.
