Political leaders, high constitutional functionaries must foster fraternity, live up to constitutional values, ethos: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 17, 026) said political leaders must foster fraternity and high public office-holders should live up to the ideals of the Constitution while hearing a petition highlighting instances of Chief Ministers, senior bureaucrats and police officers making public statements that stigmatise entire communities, legitimise discriminatory governance and erode public confidence in the State’s commitment to equal citizenship.

“We would like to impress upon all political parties to follow the principles of constitutional morality, values, mutual respect and self-respect. This is a more than 75-year-old mature democracy; we do not expect people to behave like this,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heading a three-judge Bench, observed orally.

Also Read: The contours of constitutional morality

Justice B.V. Nagarathna advocated the need to “restrain” discriminatory and communally divisive public speeches “from all sides”.

“Political leaders must ultimately foster fraternity in the country,” Justice Nagarathna remarked. Chief Justice Kant asked whether party constitutions did not have any clauses to control public conduct and speeches of their leaders.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, the third judge on the Bench, said the public have an expectation that “democratic entities would live up to the constitutional ethos and values”.

However, Justice Nagarathna pointed out that the origin of speech was thought. “How can we control thought?” the Judge asked.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, appearing for petitioner-activist Roop Rekha Verma, said the Court could certainly control the “consequences of thought” by laying down guidelines to govern public speech by constitutional functionaries and senior executive authorities, so as to ensure fidelity to constitutional morality, without imposing prior restraint or censorship.

Mr. Sibal highlighted the “normalisation of constitutionally unbecoming speeches by holders of high public offices”. He said these statements were not merely political rhetoric, but have weaved its way into the administrative and law enforcement establishments.

The petition flagged statements, emanating from sitting Chief Ministers and holders of high public offices, which exemplify how constitutional and legal authority was used to legitimise discriminatory hostility. It drew attention to statements by senior bureaucrats and police officers that “reinforce exclusion, humiliation, or collective blame”. It underscored that holders of public office and senior executive authorities who indulge in a continuing pattern of derogatory speech were not ordinary speakers.

“Their words carry the imprimatur of the State, influence administrative action, shape public perception, and can have a chilling or exclusionary effect on vulnerable communities, even in the absence of direct incitement or hate speech… No structured guidance or framework clarifying how constitutional morality applies to the public speech of constitutional functionaries. This vacuum has allowed discriminatory and derogatory speech,” the petition pointed out.

Chief Justice Kant said the petition has raised a “very serious issue” even as Mr. Sibal pointed out that the public statements have become increasingly “toxic”.

“We have to do something now,” Mr. Sibal urged.

The Court said it was keen to lay down guidelines but noted that the petition seemed to name personalities only from a particular political party. The Bench indicated that the Court did not want to enter the political thicket.

“Let this not be a populist exercise. It should be a contemplative and constitutional exercise. We need to take an objective approach,” Justice Bagchi addressed Mr. Sibal.

Mr. Sibal sought two weeks to modify the petition.