The Supreme Court has said the Constitution does not permit anyone to vilify or denigrate any community. The Court said this applies to both State and non-State actors. It added that people cannot use speeches, memes, cartoons, or visual art to attack a community.
The Court also cautioned public figures holding high constitutional office, including ministers. It said they must not single out or target any community based on religion, caste, language, or region. The Court said such conduct would violate the Constitution.
The remarks carry significance amid the recent controversy over speeches attributed to the Assam Chief Minister. Recently, a Bench led by the Chief Justice of India refused to entertain Article 32 petitions seeking an FIR for alleged hate speech against the Assam Chief Minister. The Bench directed the parties to approach the High Court instead.
Netflix film title challenge
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made these observations in his separate opinion in a petition challenging the title of a Netflix film, “Ghooskhor Pandat.” A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Bhuyan closed the case after the makers agreed to change the title.
Justice Bhuyan said the Court did not need to adjudicate once the makers withdrew the title. However, he said the Court should restate the constitutional principles on fraternity and free speech to avoid any misunderstanding.
Fraternity and constitutional duty
The Court described fraternity as a foundational constitutional value. It said the Preamble reflects fraternity as a guiding objective.
Justice Bhuyan referred to Article 51A(e). He said every citizen has a fundamental duty to promote harmony and a spirit of brotherhood that transcends religious, linguistic, and regional differences.
The judgment also referred to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s emphasis on fraternity. It noted that Ambedkar placed fraternity alongside liberty and equality. Justice Bhuyan described fraternity as “essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellow human beings.” He added: “Cultivating a sense of brotherhood and respecting fellow citizens irrespective of caste, religion or language is a constitutional dharma each one of us must follow.”
The Court also referred to a Supreme Court decision on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. It noted that the judgment described fraternity as a concept meant to cultivate brotherhood among all individuals in society.
Against this backdrop, the Court said the Constitution does not allow anyone to vilify or denigrate any community through any medium. It specifically mentioned speeches, memes, cartoons, and visual arts.
The Court said the principle matters even more when public figures hold high constitutional office. It said it would violate the Constitution for anyone to target a community based on religion, language, caste, or region. It added that this applies especially to those who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.
The Court also said the concerns raised earlier by the Bench about the film title were “well-founded and valid.” During the hearing, the Court had questioned the title—translated as “corrupt Pandat”—for denigrating a particular section of society.
Free speech, films, and judicial restraint
At the same time, Justice Bhuyan reiterated that filmmakers enjoy protection under Article 19(1)(a). He said films and satire form part of artistic expression. He added that such expression plays an important role in democratic discourse. He said the State cannot suppress it merely because certain groups object.
Justice Bhuyan relied on precedents including S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, and Viacom 18 (the Padmavat case). The Court reiterated that threats of protest or public disorder cannot hold freedom of expression hostage.
The Court also said viewers must judge films through the lens of a reasonable person. It said courts should not adopt the perspective of hypersensitive individuals. It further said courts should generally avoid interfering once the Central Board of Film Certification has certified a film.
Justice Bhuyan highlighted the caution in Imran Pratapgadhi. He said courts must not appear to regulate or stifle free speech. The judgment also referred to the observation in Imran Pratapgadhi that a 75-year-old Republic should not feel threatened by a poem or a comic show. Justice Bhuyan added: “This would equally apply to the title of a movie as well. I say this and no more.”
