Hate speech PIL ‘targeted’ BJP CM: Supreme Court | India News

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday criticized 12 “eminent” persons who together filed a PIL “against” the chief minister of a BJP-ruled state, accusing him of hate speech, while calling for guidelines to be put in place to restrain constitutional officers and bureaucrats from violating loyalty to constitutional ethics. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, told a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi that the atmosphere in the country had become toxic and “only the Supreme Court can and should remedy this.”However, the CJI-led bench was quick to point out that the petition selectively named individuals while highlighting the issues. “This petition is certainly targeted at certain individuals as it leaves out others who regularly make such hateful comments. Petitioners should not give the impression that they are targeting individuals. “The petitioners include Roop Rekha Verma, Mohd Adeep, Harsh Mander, Najeeb Jung, John Dayal and Ashok Kumar Sharma, citing hate speeches by BJP members Himanta Biswa Sarma, Yogi Adityanath, Devendra Fadnavis, Pushkar Singh Dhami, Anantkumar Hegde and Giriraj Singh, besides certain remarks by some bureaucrats.“Please file an impartial and neutral petition. This issue is important. At the end of the day, all parties must exercise restraint in their speech. What we want to say is that all party workers must keep in mind the constitutional ethics and exercise restraint in their speech and any guidelines should be universally applicable.”The judge said some political parties blatantly made statements based on their shared ideologies and openly expressed hatred. “You didn’t cite a single example of the other party.”When Sibal said he would delete all personal references in the petition, the bench responded that the PIL would be heard with necessary modifications.Justice Nagarathna said, “Political party leaders must promote brotherhood. Courts can pass orders. But the remedy lies in political parties and democratic institutions adhering to constitutional values ​​and morals.” Justice Nagarathna added, “The origin of speech is the thought process. Can a court order to change or restrict a person’s thought process? What about freedom of expression?”“This is such a vague petition. Instead of it being a populist exercise, let it be a constructive constitutional exercise,” Justice Bacchi told Sibal. Dry politics should not determine the filing of a PIL. “Sibal sought two weeks to amend the PIL.The two prayers of the petitioners read like fundamental duties of citizens: a) State that public speech by constitutional functionaries or public officials must comply with constitutional morals and must not infringe upon the fundamental rights of others; b) Establish guidelines to govern the public speech of constitutional officers and bureaucrats to ensure fidelity to constitutional morals without imposing prior restrictions or censorship.