New Delhi: A group of former civil servants, academics, and social activists have moved the Supreme Court seeking the framing of guidelines to regulate statements and remarks made by constitutional functionaries that do not comport with constitutional morality.
The writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution through advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, contended that repeated discriminatory and derogatory utterances by holders of public office undermine the core values of the Constitution.
Recalling the Constituent Assembly Debates, the petition referred to Acharya J.B. Kripalani’s warning that the principles enshrined in the Preamble were “not merely legal, constitutional and formal principles, but moral principles” which must be lived in political, administrative and public life.
“More than seven decades later, we find ourselves in a political climate where the preambular principles remain in the text, but actions of administrators and constitutional functionaries often betray their intent,” the plea said, adding that “living the principles, as Acharya Kripalani would have asked for, has been lost both in thought and practice”.
The petition alleged that this failure to adhere to constitutional morality has resulted in a series of troubling public statements by constitutional authorities and senior public officials across the country in recent years.
It referred to remarks attributed to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, BJP leader Nitesh Rane and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, among others, and claimed that nearly 30 such statements have been identified during research.
While acknowledging that political actors may subscribe to different ideologies, the petition asserted that constitutional functionaries and holders of public office are bound by the Constitution to ensure fairness in action and restraint in speech.
“Constitutional functionaries, holders of public office, and officials of the government are bound by the Constitution to ensure fairness in action. This would also mean that statements which are discriminatory or derogatory in nature, even if not amounting to hate speech, should be impermissible to be uttered by such persons,” it added.
Clarifying the scope of the relief sought, the petition stressed that it does not seek to curtail free speech or demand penal action for hate speech, which is governed by existing law.
“The present petition does not seek to limit free speech or seek punishments for hate speech,” it said, adding that the limited prayer is for the apex court to evolve guidelines, either through judicial examination or a dialogic process, to ensure that public officials adhere to constitutional morality in their conduct and public discourse.
The plea has arrayed the Union of India and the states of Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh as respondents.
(IANS)
