"If you are in politics, you should have a thick skin," observed the Supreme Court while dismissing an appeal by the Telangana BJP against Congress Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy over a speech during the 2024 Lok Sabha election campaign. The Court has repeatedly underscored that politicians should be thick-skinned and tolerant of criticism.
Most recently, on Monday (8 September), the Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai, heading a bench with Justices K. Vinod Chandran and A. S. Chandurkar, cautioned that courts should not be turned into political battlegrounds.
The BJP had alleged that Reddy conspired with the Congress "to develop a fake and dubious political narrative" that the BJP would end reservations. The Court's remarks reaffirm its long-standing view that public figures must endure criticism to safeguard robust public debate and prevent judicial fora from being misused for political skirmishes.
False Cases
Earlier, on January 20, 2024, Justice Gavai (then an SC judge) made a similar point in response to a plea from a political commentator facing FIRs. Alongside Justice Sanjay Karol, he observed that criticism and adverse comment are part and parcel of public life-even for judges-and that yielding to such pressure undermines one's ability to perform judicial or political duties effectively.
Various high courts too have expressed concern about the surge of petitions for defamation proceedings filed by political leaders against one another, often descending into personal mudslinging.
The courts are continually flooded with cases involving political speech, with increasing demands for judicial intervention in alleged defamation, insult or offence between rival politicians.
In recent years, state governments have also used criminal cases to silence critics-whether social or political activists-in response to unfavourable commentary. In April 2024, the Court reiterated that criticism of politicians on social media does not justify imprisonment, stressing that misuse of free speech is distinct from legitimate dissent.
Pragmatic Advice
Given the coarseness of political discourse in India, the Supreme Court's advice is both pragmatic and anchored in the broader democratic principle of protecting free expression.
The frequent filing of defamation cases by politicians is clogging already overburdened courts, diverting judicial time and resources from matters of real public importance.
Political brawls are increasingly dragged into the judicial system under the guise of "hurt sentiments" and "personal agony". Such cases are often less about genuine reputational harm than about silencing opponents or gaining political mileage.
The Court has also reminded us that robust political speech is essential to a vibrant democracy. Yet judges are often left to walk the fine line between free speech and defamation, deciding when reputations and "hurt sentiments" truly warrant legal redress.
For instance, the courts took cognisance of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's comments on the "Modi" surname, which led to his conviction, sentencing and subsequent disqualification from the Lok Sabha-until the Supreme Court stayed his conviction.
Until clearer definitions of defamation emerge, such suits will continue to waste judicial time.
Constructive criticism
Thick skin allows leaders to rise above negative opinion while engaging meaningfully with constructive criticism. It is an indispensable trait for those in public life.
Unfortunately, Indian politicians in general display little tolerance. Once in power, many are especially unwilling to become the butt of jokes. Election seasons typically witness a surge of cases filed by politicians or their supporters against opponents' barbs, often as a tactic to gain brownie points with voters.
In any democracy, political discourse is inherently rough-edged, relying on sharp censure, satire and exaggeration. If courts entertained every affront felt by politicians, free speech would be stifled-particularly during elections, when critique and debate are most essential.
Public criticism is central to accountability. It enables citizens to scrutinise their elected representatives and public servants for their actions and policies.
Reviewing outdated defamation laws that criminalise speech is therefore imperative. Political culture itself needs reform.
Engaging with an open mind
In today's interconnected world, Indian politicians could learn from their Western counterparts when it comes to engaging with humour, criticism and dissent. Leaders should be magnanimous enough to acknowledge public perception and engage in genuine self-reflection. Legitimate criticism of leaders and government policies is a natural part of free expression-and one that can make governance more transparent while curbing inefficiency and corruption.
Detractors of this view argue, however, that unchecked or malicious criticism can normalise personal attacks, hate speech and falsehoods. They point out that politicians, like all citizens, deserve protection from defamatory statements that go beyond fair comment.
The old maxim, "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion," has often been applied to the moral standards expected of public figures. In its January 2024 observations, the Supreme Court also noted that judges must ignore personal attacks, recognising that criticism is simply part of public life.
And why should politicians alone be thick-skinned? In today's BINA (Brittle, Anxious, Non-Linear, Incomprehensible) world, everyone must learn to withstand criticism and adversity. Being thick-skinned is, after all, an asset.
(The author is Contributing Editor, NDTV)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
