Holders of public office subject to unwritten rule to not blabber disparaging, insulting things: SC

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday remarked that it is an unwritten rule for persons holding public offices to impose self-restriction and not blabber things which are disparaging and insulting to other countrymen. 

Stressing the existence of inherent constitutional restriction, the five-judge bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna said that the practice of abstaining from making derogatory remarks must be inculcated in our political society and our civic line.

“As far as public functionaries are concerned, irrespective of what Article 19(2) may say, is there no constitutional culture in our country where there is an inherent restriction or limitation which is imposed by persons holding responsible posts? It is inherent and there is no need for the court to give code of conduct on that. For any person holding public office or as a public servant, there is an unwritten rule and it is part of the constitutional culture that we impose a self-restriction when we hold offices of responsibilities and not blabber things which are very disparaging or insulting to other countrymen. There is something like constitutional restriction which is inherent and this must be inculcated in our political society and our civic line,” Justice BV Nagarathna remarked.

The court also said that the reason for the absence of legislation to restrict public servants was because of the existence of self-imposed restrictions on them but now an impression was being given that the same was slowly relaxing as a result of which people holding public offices were making offending speeches.

“The reason why there has been no legislation all this while is cause there have been self-imposed restrictions on persons holding public life but now an impression being given is that those kinds of restrictions are being slowly relaxed as a consequence of which persons are speaking which is offending. None seems to be checking them anyone can get away with saying something which is disparaging against somebody else," the court added. 

The court was considering pleas which raised the issue of whether restrictions can be imposed on a public functionary's right to freedom of speech and expression.

The court also reserved its verdict on whether it can lay down additional guidelines for imposing restrictions against disparaging and controversial statements made by public functionaries including ministers.

Terming the issue as “academic”, SG Tushar Mehta apprised the bench of the court’s verdict in the case of Tehseen Poonawala and Amish Devgan, wherein it had laid down detailed guidelines and directions on the issue of hate and abhorrent speech.

AG R Venkataramani submitted that the issue related to laying down restrictions of speech on public functionaries required legislative interference. “Road map has been drawn and it may be applied as and when the situation arises. It’ll be in fitness of thing that Parliament addresses and the government may look into it. Let the Parliament apply its mind. Larger percentage of responsible persons are there who know what to speak and what not to speak. Aberrations must be taken care of,” he added. 

For the petitioners, Senior Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj submitted that although the ruling in the case of Tehseen Poonawala and Amish Devgan laid down a slew of directions regarding hate speech, it did not deal with the issue of hate or “disparaging speech” by public functionaries. "The reason for this referral is concern for hate speech by public functionaries, this is an element lacking in other cases addressed by this court," he said.

Asserting that hate speech should be separated from free speech and that there should be some public check, he suggested the bench to formulate a voluntary code of conduct for public functionaries and establish an institution of an ombudsman. “We have listed about 20 instances, where even the PM, labourers, and the president of India were mocked in speeches. After 2014, there has been 415% increase in matters of hate speech out of which a major portion is shared by public functionaries like MPs,” he also added. 

A three-judge bench had on October 5, 2017 referred to the Constitution bench various issues for adjudication, including whether a public functionary or a minister can claim freedom of speech while expressing views on sensitive matters.

The need for an authoritative pronouncement on the issue arose as there were arguments that a minister cannot take a personal view and his statements have to be in sync with government policy.

The apex court had earlier said it will consider whether the Fundamental Right of Speech and Expression would be governed under reasonable restriction of decency or morality or other preferred fundamental rights would also have an impact on it.

The case was related to a statement made by then Uttar Pradesh minister Azam Khan about the Bulandshahr gang-rape case victims.

The court was hearing a plea filed by a man whose wife and daughter were allegedly gang-raped in July, 2016 on a highway near Bulandshahr seeking transfer of the case to Delhi and lodging of an FIR against Khan for his controversial statement that the gang-rape case was a "political conspiracy".

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday remarked that it is an unwritten rule for persons holding public offices to impose self-restriction and not blabber things which are disparaging and insulting to other countrymen.  Stressing the existence of inherent constitutional restriction, the five-judge bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna said that the practice of abstaining from making derogatory remarks must be inculcated in our political society and our civic line. “As far as public functionaries are concerned, irrespective of what Article 19(2) may say, is there no constitutional culture in our country where there is an inherent restriction or limitation which is imposed by persons holding responsible posts? It is inherent and there is no need for the court to give code of conduct on that. For any person holding public office or as a public servant, there is an unwritten rule and it is part of the constitutional culture that we impose a self-restriction when we hold offices of responsibilities and not blabber things which are very disparaging or insulting to other countrymen. There is something like constitutional restriction which is inherent and this must be inculcated in our political society and our civic line,” Justice BV Nagarathna remarked. The court also said that the reason for the absence of legislation to restrict public servants was because of the existence of self-imposed restrictions on them but now an impression was being given that the same was slowly relaxing as a result of which people holding public offices were making offending speeches. “The reason why there has been no legislation all this while is cause there have been self-imposed restrictions on persons holding public life but now an impression being given is that those kinds of restrictions are being slowly relaxed as a consequence of which persons are speaking which is offending. None seems to be checking them anyone can get away with saying something which is disparaging against somebody else," the court added.  The court was considering pleas which raised the issue of whether restrictions can be imposed on a public functionary's right to freedom of speech and expression. The court also reserved its verdict on whether it can lay down additional guidelines for imposing restrictions against disparaging and controversial statements made by public functionaries including ministers. Terming the issue as “academic”, SG Tushar Mehta apprised the bench of the court’s verdict in the case of Tehseen Poonawala and Amish Devgan, wherein it had laid down detailed guidelines and directions on the issue of hate and abhorrent speech. AG R Venkataramani submitted that the issue related to laying down restrictions of speech on public functionaries required legislative interference. “Road map has been drawn and it may be applied as and when the situation arises. It’ll be in fitness of thing that Parliament addresses and the government may look into it. Let the Parliament apply its mind. Larger percentage of responsible persons are there who know what to speak and what not to speak. Aberrations must be taken care of,” he added.  For the petitioners, Senior Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj submitted that although the ruling in the case of Tehseen Poonawala and Amish Devgan laid down a slew of directions regarding hate speech, it did not deal with the issue of hate or “disparaging speech” by public functionaries. "The reason for this referral is concern for hate speech by public functionaries, this is an element lacking in other cases addressed by this court," he said. Asserting that hate speech should be separated from free speech and that there should be some public check, he suggested the bench to formulate a voluntary code of conduct for public functionaries and establish an institution of an ombudsman. “We have listed about 20 instances, where even the PM, labourers, and the president of India were mocked in speeches. After 2014, there has been 415% increase in matters of hate speech out of which a major portion is shared by public functionaries like MPs,” he also added.  A three-judge bench had on October 5, 2017 referred to the Constitution bench various issues for adjudication, including whether a public functionary or a minister can claim freedom of speech while expressing views on sensitive matters. The need for an authoritative pronouncement on the issue arose as there were arguments that a minister cannot take a personal view and his statements have to be in sync with government policy. The apex court had earlier said it will consider whether the Fundamental Right of Speech and Expression would be governed under reasonable restriction of decency or morality or other preferred fundamental rights would also have an impact on it. The case was related to a statement made by then Uttar Pradesh minister Azam Khan about the Bulandshahr gang-rape case victims. The court was hearing a plea filed by a man whose wife and daughter were allegedly gang-raped in July, 2016 on a highway near Bulandshahr seeking transfer of the case to Delhi and lodging of an FIR against Khan for his controversial statement that the gang-rape case was a "political conspiracy".