Selective targeting: SC refuses to entertain plea seeking guidelines against hate speech

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday refused to entertain public interest litigation (PIL) filed by twelve petitioners, including former Delhi Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung and academic Roop Rekha Verma, seeking guidelines for public officials, constitutional functionaries and executive administrators to follow constitutional morality in their conduct.

The plea had specifically alleged discriminatory remarks by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, among others and sought guidelines to tackle such remarks made by public figures.

A three-judge bench of the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and B V Nagarathna expressed disapproval of the selective nature of the allegations. “The petitioners are eminent persons. We respect them. Ask the petitioners not to target any particular individual. Only selected individuals. Others were very conveniently ignored. It is not fair”. The Bench indicated that it would be inclined to hear a plea that was framed with complete objectivity and impartiality.

HUGE! Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea on ‘hate speech’ by CMs

~ CJI Surya Kant: “Don’t target individuals, file a NEUTRAL PETITION applicable to ALL parties.”

Activists had named CM Himanta, Yogi, & Dhami for their statements against जिhad. Chad Suryakant pic.twitter.com/hATmm5yxGC

— The Analyzer (News Updates ) (@Indian_Analyzer) February 17, 2026

During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, flagged what he described as an increasingly toxic public discourse. “All I can say is that only this court can do something about it. This has become toxic now, and we need to do something,” the senior lawyer said.

Sibal further submitted that the petitioners were willing to remove personal allegations. “Petitioners are ready to delete any personal allegations,” he added. The court, however, questioned the broader efficacy of judicially framed guidelines in such matters.

“There should ultimately be restraint on all sides. Assuming guidelines are given by this Court, why can’t there be self-restraint and self-regulation? Ultimately, it is at the cost of fraternity in the country”, Justice B. V. Nagarathna verbally observed.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi also expressed concern about compliance. “A court can only issue orders, but the question is whether it will be complied with or not? The only remedy is after breaches occur. It is for the political parties to live up to their code of conduct”, Justice Bagchi verbally noted.

On the issue of regulating public discourse, the CJI highlighted the distinction between public servants and public figures. “We would like to impress upon all political parties the importance of constitutional morality, values and mutual respect. That should be applied uniformly across the board. That is what we expect. When you are talking about public servants, there is a wealth of laws, rules and mandates. Everything is already in place. He added that a similar framework for public figures could be considered. Some similar code of conduct…”

In response, Sibal sought permission to withdraw the petition and assured the Court that a fresh, comprehensive plea would be filed. The Court permitted the withdrawal of the plea. “Let it not be a populist exercise, but a constitutional exercise”, Justice Bagchi said. (ANI)