The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a fresh PIL jointly filed by 12 activists seeking action against Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for his alleged hate speeches, saying such petitions could not be directed against any individual or political party but all those indulging in hate campaigns.
The apex court asked the petitioners to include everyone making such incendiary speeches instead of just targeting one individual or a party.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice B.V. Nagarathana and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the oral observations while dealing with a PIL filed by academic Roop Rekha Verma and 11 others who sought action against Sarma.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said the atmosphere had become “toxic” and urged the bench to frame guidelines to ensure accountability when political speeches vitiate fraternity.
“We need to do something which only your Lordships can do. This is becoming very toxic. The petition is not qua any particular individual,” Sibal told the bench.
However, the bench was not in agreement, with CJI Kant saying the petition appeared to single out select individuals of a particular political party.
“The petition is definitely targeted against a particular individual as it has reference only to his speech… let the petitioners not create an impression that they are against a particular party or individual…. This is not acceptable,” the CJI said.
He added that a petition targeting “selectively chosen few” would not be acceptable and that any such challenge must be objective and even-handed.
“We are inclined to entertain such a petition. We are eagerly waiting for someone with objectivity to come and file one,” the CJI said.
Justice Nagarathna said political leaders must foster fraternity in the country,
underscoring the need for
restraint.
“Suppose we lay down guidelines, who will follow them?” she asked.
“Origin of speech is thought. How do you control thought? We must raise thoughts in line with constitutional values,” she added.
Sibal said that though the Election Commission’s model code of conduct (MCC) operated during elections, speeches made before the MCC circulated on social media even after it came into force.
“In the digital world, when the MCC comes into force, these speeches are repeated. What is the responsibility of the media in such cases so that the democratic atmosphere is not vitiated?” he asked, seeking judicially framed guidelines to caution public figures.
The CJI, however, emphasised that public servants were already bound by service rules, including the All India Services Rules, and cautioned against casually drafted pleas.
Justice Bagchi said the court could only pass orders, while implementation remained a challenge.
Sibal offered to withdraw the petition and file an amended one as suggested by the court. Accordingly, the court permitted petitioners to withdraw and file a modified petition.
AI misuse
The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed concern over a growing trend of lawyers filing petitions drafted with AI tools that contain non-existent judgments.
“We are alarmed to reflect that some lawyers have started using AI to draft petitions. It is absolutely uncalled for,” the bench said.
Justice Nagarathna said she recently came across a non-existent citation called “Mercy vs Mankind”.
Justice Nagarathna said that at times, the judgments referred to were correct, but fake quotes were attributed to those verdicts, making it difficult to verify the contents.
“It creates an additional burden on the judges,” she said.