The Supreme Court has said public figures holding high constitutional offices cannot target any particular community on the basis of religion, language, caste or region
Share
NEW DELHI — Observing that fraternity serves as a critical element for national unity and social cohesion, the Supreme Court has said public figures holding high constitutional offices cannot target any particular community on the basis of religion, language, caste or region.
The top court said that nobody, including State and non-State actors, can vilify or denigrate any community through speeches, memes, cartoons or visual art.
The observations were made by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in a separate judgment on a plea challenging release of upcoming Netflix crime thriller 'Ghooskhor Pandat'.
"It is constitutionally impermissible for anybody, be it the State or non-state actors, through any medium, such as, speeches, memes, cartoons, visual arts etc. to vilify and denigrate any community.
"It will be violative of the Constitution to target any particular community on the basis of religion, language, caste or region by whosoever he or she may be. This is particularly true for public figures occupying high constitutional office who have taken the solemn oath to uphold the Constitution," Justice Bhuyan wrote in a 39-page judgement.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Bhuyan on February 19 disposed of a plea seeking a stay on the release of the film after taking filmmaker Neeraj Pandey's affidavit on record and said it is expected that there shall be a quietus to this controversy in all respects.
In his judgement, Justice Bhuyan said one of the solemn objectives of the Constitution which finds mention in the Preamble is to promote amongst all the citizens of India fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.
"Thus, cultivating a sense of brotherhood and respecting fellow citizens irrespective of caste, religion or language is a constitutional dharma each one of us must follow," the judge wrote.
Justice Bhuyan said liberty of thought and expression is one of the ideals of our Constitution and Article 19(1)(a) confers such a fundamental right on all citizens.
"The reasonable restriction provided for in Article 19(2) must remain reasonable and not fanciful and oppressive. Article 19(2) cannot be allowed to overshadow the substantive rights under Article 19(1) including the right to freedom of speech and expression," he wrote.