Today, On 17th February, The Supreme Court declined to entertain another plea seeking fresh rules for regulating public speeches by constitutional authorities, noting its reluctance to repeatedly revisit issues already settled in earlier judgments. It said speech begins in thought, urging discipline.
The Supreme Court expressed hesitance to consider yet another petition aimed at establishing guidelines to govern the public speeches of constitutional functionaries and senior executive officials.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi indicated that the petition should not target an individual but should instead apply universally.
The Court was reviewing a petition from activist Roop Rekha Verma, who sought a declaration that public speeches by constitutional authorities should not infringe upon fundamental rights.
ALSO READ: Not Legislating Or Monitoring Every Small Incident: Supreme Court On Hate Speech
CJI Kant criticized the plea, suggesting it should name all political parties involved.
The CJI remarked,
“Of course it is against an individual, especially at this time… withdraw this. File a simple plea detailing what conditional guardrails exist and how they are being violated by political parties,”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, noted that the current atmosphere in the country had become toxic.
Although he clarified that the petition was not intended to target a specific individual, CJI Kant maintained that it should encompass all parties.
Justice BV Nagarathna stated,
“Origin of speech is thought. We must erase those thoughts which go against the constitutional ethos,”
During the hearing, discussion also turned to the rising trend of hate speech, with Justice Nagarathna emphasizing the need for political parties to independently promote fraternity within the country.
She questioned,
“There has to be restraint on all sides. Political leaders must foster fraternity in the country. Suppose we lay down guidelines… who will follow it?”
Justice Bagchi pointed out that the Court has issued previous guidelines.
He remarked,
“From Kaushal Kishore to Amish Devgan, how many guidelines have we laid down? Responsibility lies with the political parties to implement as well,”
CJI Kant highlighted that public servants are expected to adhere to service rules, stressing the importance of constitutional morality.
“When discussing public figures and servants… public servants have to follow. But there are rules such as All India Service Rules etc. Don’t settle for casually drafted proposals. We did not entertain the plea against Himanta Biswa Sarma yesterday either. We emphasized that one must observe the boundaries of constitutional morality.”
Justice Nagarathna also noted the need to correct underlying thoughts to prevent inflammatory speeches.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked on the significance of the issue, stating,
“The humdrum of politics cannot dim such important issues.”
The session was adjourned today after Sibal requested additional time to modify the petition.
ALSO READ: Not Legislating Or Monitoring Every Small Incident: Supreme Court On Hate Speech
Hate speech is any spoken, written, or symbolic expression that attacks, insults, or encourages hatred or violence against a person or community because of their religion, caste, race, language, gender, nationality, or similar identity.
In India, hate speech becomes unlawful when it disturbs public order, threatens unity, creates enmity between groups, or intentionally hurts religious feelings.
While the Constitution protects free speech under Article 19(1)(a), this right is not absolute and can be restricted when speech harms public order, decency, morality, or the security of the State.
Case Title: ROOP REKHA VERMA Vs UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 199/2026
Read More Reports On Hate Speech