New Delhi | 26.02 | Rayat Samachar
(Supreme court of India) The Supreme Court has clearly observed that individuals holding high constitutional offices must not target any community on the basis of religion, caste, language, or region, as doing so would be constitutionally inappropriate. The Court firmly emphasized that public officials who take an oath to protect the Constitution are expected to exercise a higher degree of responsibility.
(Supreme court of India) A bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and B. V. Nagarathna made these observations in a separate ruling on a petition filed against the film titled ‘Ghooskhor Pandit’ being streamed on an OTT platform. The case was disposed of after the filmmakers agreed to change the controversial title.
Balancing Fraternity and Freedom of Expression:
Justice Bhuyan clarified that although the withdrawal of the title removed the urgency for an immediate decision, it was necessary to reiterate constitutional principles. The term “fraternity” is highlighted in the Preamble of the Constitution, while freedom of expression is guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). Maintaining a balance between these two values is the true spirit of the Constitution.
Fraternity is not merely a concept but a fundamental civic duty to promote harmony through diversity. The Court stated that it is the responsibility of every citizen to nurture coexistence and mutual respect beyond religious, linguistic, and regional differences.
Defamation of Communities is Unacceptable:
The Court observed that no individual can defame any community through governmental or non-governmental speeches, memes, cartoons, or visual art. Such forms of expression are contrary to the constitutional framework. The seriousness increases significantly when such statements are made by persons holding high constitutional offices.
At the same time, artistic expression is an important part of democratic dialogue and cannot be suppressed merely on the basis of objections raised by certain groups. Freedom of expression cannot be held hostage by threats of public unrest or protest. Referring to earlier judgments, the Court remarked that a 75-year-old republic should not feel threatened by poetry, humour, or even a film title.
Background:
In this context, the Supreme Court also refused to hear petitions seeking the registration of an FIR directly under Article 32 in connection with alleged hate speech by Himanta Biswa Sarma, directing the petitioners to approach the concerned State High Court instead.
Reaffirming constitutional values, the Supreme Court delivered a clear message that maintaining a balance between freedom of expression and fraternity is the true strength of democracy.