Supreme Court Petition Demands Framework to Regulate Inflammatory Rhetoric by Public Officials
Group of former civil servants and activists challenge speeches by Assam CM and other constitutional functionaries, arguing such remarks erode democratic values while seeking regulatory measures without restricting free speech
A coalition of ten prominent citizens, including retired bureaucrats, diplomats, and social activists, has approached the Supreme Court through a public interest litigation demanding that standards of constitutional conduct be enforced on public speeches made by ministers and other constitutional office-holders.
The petitioners, who include former Vice-Chancellor Dr. Roop Rekha Verma, ex-Rajya Sabha member Mohammad Adeeb, and retired IAS officer Harsh Mander, have challenged recent statements made by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma targeting the Muslim community, particularly those referred to as ‘Miya Muslims.’
According to the petition filed under Article 32, the Chief Minister has allegedly attributed rising vegetable prices, alleged instances of ‘love jihad,’ and even floods to members of a specific religious community. The plea also references statements where Sarma reportedly expressed intentions to remove four to five lakh voters belonging to a particular religious group from electoral rolls.
The petitioners argue that while such rhetoric may not meet the technical threshold of hate speech offences under existing law, it contributes to a cumulative degradation of constitutional morality. They emphasize that the plea seeks to establish guidelines without imposing blanket restrictions on the fundamental right to free expression.
Beyond the Assam CM’s statements, the petition highlights similar patterns among Union Ministers and senior executive officials who have allegedly characterized Muslims as “infiltrators” and “foreign sympathizers.” The National Security Advisor’s reported call for citizens to “avenge history” has also been flagged as problematic.
The group argues that constitutional morality should serve as a restraint on those holding high public office, regardless of political affiliation. They stress that the absence of regulatory norms allows inflammatory discourse to proliferate unchecked, potentially undermining core democratic principles of equality, secularism, and fraternity.
This petition follows a similar application by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, which approached the apex court last month seeking action against the same speeches. That plea called the remarks “communal, deeply divisive, and contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.”
The petitioners include several distinguished former civil servants: Najeeb Hamid Jung (retired IAS and former Lieutenant Governor of NCT Delhi), Dr. John Dayal (journalist and Secretary-general of the All India Christian Council), Aditi Mehta (former IAS), Suresh K. Goel (former IFS), Ashok Kumar Sharma (former IFS), Subodh Lal (former Indian Postal Service officer), and Daya Singh (social and religious activist).
The Supreme Court’s response to this petition will be closely watched, particularly given the delicate balance between protecting freedom of expression and maintaining standards of constitutional conduct for those in positions of public trust.
Legal experts note that this case raises fundamental questions about the responsibilities that come with constitutional office, even as the right to free speech remains protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
