Evan V

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday made oral observations stating that political discourse must be anchored in constitutional values, with electioneering conducted in an atmosphere of mutual respect and fraternity.

A Three Judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition seeking guidelines to prevent “Constitutionally unbecoming” speech by persons holding constitutional office. The petition, as reported, was triggered by controversy surrounding recent speeches attributed to Himanta Biswa Sarma and a video posted by BJP Assam, which the petitioners contended were perceived as targeting a particular community.

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted: "We need to do something. Only your lordships can do something. This is becoming very toxic. This petition is not qua any individual."

Also Read: Regularisation Cannot Be Denied To Casual Workers Once Similarly Situated Daily Wagers Have Been Regularised: Supreme Court 

The Chief Justice, however, observed that the petition appeared "definitely targeted against a particular individual(Sarma)" because it referred only to those speeches. Sibal responded that no personal relief was being sought against the Assam Chief Minister and undertook to delete the references, urging the Court to examine the issue on principle.

While acknowledging that the petitioners were "eminent persons", the Bench indicated that the drafting would need to be reworked to avoid any impression of selective targeting. The CJI suggested withdrawing the present plea and filing a fresh petition confined to constitutional principles: "Let the petitioners not create an impression that they are against a particular party or individual," he said.

When it was reiterated that no individual-specific relief was sought, the Chief Justice remarked that the petitioners had "chosen some individuals selectively, conveniently ignoring others." He added: "This is not acceptable; they should be fair," and clarified that the Court was open to examining the larger issue if presented in an objective and even-handed manner.

The Bench recorded that it was awaiting a properly framed petition, with the Chief Justice stating: "We are inclined to entertain the petition. We are eagerly waiting that somebody will come before us objectively and with impartiality,"

Justice Nagarathna observed that "there should be restraint from all sides." Sibal agreed: "Absolutely, without doubt," and submitted that problematic statements made before the Model Code of Conduct comes into force often continue to circulate online, raising questions about the regulatory response.

Referring to remarks made a day earlier in related proceedings, the Chief Justice reiterated the Court’s expectation that all political parties adhere to constitutional values uniformly: "Yesterday, the first observation made by us was that we would like to impress upon all the political parties - please follow the principles of constitutional morality, constitutional values, mutual respect, self respect. Based on ideological principles, you fight. But with respect. We are a 75-year-old mature democracy. You don't expect people to behave like this. But that should be applied uniformly across the board. That is what we expect,"

Justice Nagarathna added: "Political leaders must ultimately foster fraternity in the country," the Court noted the seriousness of the issue even as it expressed reservations about the petition’s present form.

Also Read: Public Corruption Allegations Against Employer On Social Media Can Amount To Misconduct Under Service Rules: Delhi High Court

In the course of the hearing, Justice Nagarathna also remarked: "Before the speech, comes the thought. How can we control the thought?" When it was submitted that consequences can be attached to action (even if thoughts cannot be regulated), the Judge observed that it was necessary to "erase the thoughts"—in the sense of eliminating ideas inconsistent with constitutional values.

Accepting the request for time to reframe the pleadings, the Bench adjourned the matter for two weeks, with Sibal stating that a fresh petition would be filed. The Bench also noted that in separate petitions filed under Article 32 seeking action against the Assam Chief Minister for alleged hate-speech-related offences, the Supreme Court had recently directed petitioners to approach the Gauhati High Court.

As reported, the petition was instituted by Roop Rekha Verma and other citizens, including former civil servants and civil society members, and sought (i) a declaration that public speeches made in official or quasi-official capacity must conform to constitutional morality and the values underlying Articles 14 and 21, and (ii) appropriate guidelines for public speech by constitutional functionaries without curtailing lawful free speech.

Case Title: Roop Rekha Verma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 199/2026.

Bench: Chief Justice  Surya Kant, Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi