17 February,2026 02:46 PM IST | New Delhi | mid-day online correspondent
The Supreme Court of India. Representational Image
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday said that political leaders must promote fraternity in the country, even as it declined to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking guidelines on political speeches.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices B V Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi, asked the 12 petitioners to withdraw their plea and file a fresh, more neutral petition if they wished to pursue the matter. The petition was filed by academician Roop Rekha Verma and others, including former civil servants and activists. It was argued by senior advocate Kapil Sibal.
Sibal told the court that the public atmosphere had become "toxic" due to political speeches and urged the bench to frame guidelines to ensure accountability. "It's becoming toxic. I am not on any individual," he said, clarifying that the plea was not aimed at any one leader as per PTI.
The petition was moved in the backdrop of alleged hate speeches by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. A day earlier, another bench had refused to entertain petitions seeking action against him over a viral video.
However, the bench of Supreme Court expressed concern that the plea appeared to single out certain individuals.
"Of course it is against an individual, especially at this time." The Chief Justice then asked to withdraw this and instead file a simple plea on what conditional guardrails have been laid down and how political parties are violating them.
He added that a petition targeting "selectively chosen few" would not be acceptable. Any challenge, he said, must be objective and even-handed. "We are inclined to entertain such a petition. We are eagerly waiting for someone with objectivity to come and file one," he remarked as per PTI reports.
Justice Nagarathna stressed the broader constitutional value at stake. "Political leaders must foster fraternity in the country," she observed.
She also raised practical concerns about framing new rules. "Suppose we lay down guidelines⦠Who will follow them?" she asked. She further added that any origin of speech is thought, and then asked that how is suppose to regularise or control thoughts? "We must raise thoughts in line with constitutional values," added Nagarathna
Justice Bagchi added that while the court can pass orders, ensuring implementation is often difficult. He pointed out that the Supreme Court has already laid down principles on hate speech and free expression in earlier judgments. "Responsibility lies with the political parties as well. He is a member of the party, a leader," he said.
Sibal argued that while the Election Commission's Model Code of Conduct (MCC) applies during elections, speeches made before the MCC period often continue to circulate on social media even after it comes into force. "In the digital world, when the MCC comes into force, these speeches are repeated. What is the responsibility of the media in such cases so that the democratic atmosphere is not vitiated?" he asked.
However, the Chief Justice noted that public servants are already governed by service rules, including the All India Services Rules, and cautioned against casually drafted pleas.
While declining to entertain the present PIL, the court indicated it is open to examining a properly framed, neutral petition addressing broader issues of political speech and constitutional values. For now, the bench made it clear that maintaining fraternity is a responsibility that lies primarily with political leaders and parties themselves.
