'Encourage thoughts aligned with Constitution': Supreme Court urges political leaders to foster fraternity

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said political leaders must foster fraternity as it declined to consider a plea seeking guidelines on political speeches.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and Justices B V Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi said, the political leaders must foster fraternity.

"Speech originates from thought. How do you control thought? We should encourage thoughts aligned with constitutional values," the bench said.

The court, however, declined to entertain a plea, saying it appeared to single out select individuals of a particular political party. The court asked the petitioners to file a fresh and objective plea.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued for the petitioners, including academician Roop Rekha Verma.

The bench, however, pointed out that the allegations seemed to target “a selectively chosen few” while ignoring others. The court said such a petition would not be acceptable and that any challenge must be objective and even-handed.

Sibal argued that the political atmosphere had become “toxic”. He asked the court to frame guidelines to ensure accountability when speeches undermine fraternity, clarifying that the plea was not directed against any particular leader.

The bench, however, said, “Of course it is against an individual, especially at this time. Withdraw this. File a simple plea on what conditional guardrails have been laid down and how political parties are violating them."

“We are inclined to entertain such a petition. We are eagerly waiting for someone with objectivity to come and file one,” the bench said.

Emphasising the need for restraint on all sides, the bench questioned, “Suppose we lay down guidelines, who will follow them?”

Sibal said that while the Election Commission’s Model Code of Conduct (MCC) applies during elections, speeches made before the MCC period often continue circulating on social media even after it comes into force.

He also questioned the media's responsibility for amplifying such speeches and sought judicial guidelines to caution public figures.

The bench said that while the court can issue orders, implementation remains a challenge.

Referring to earlier judgments, the court noted that the Supreme Court has already laid down principles concerning hate speech and free expression.

“Responsibility lies with the political parties as well. He is a member of the party, a leader,” the bench said.

The court declined to entertain the PIL seeking clear guidelines for politicians and the media on reporting or amplifying allegedly divisive speeches impacting fraternity and constitutional values.

Former Lucknow University professor Roop Rekha Verma and 11 others, filed the plea.

On February 16, 2026, the court declined to hear petitions seeking action against the Assam Chief Minister in relation to a viral video, reinforcing the need for objectivity for filing such petitions.