Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that targeting or vilifying any community based on religion, caste, language, or region is constitutionally impermissible for both State and non-State actors.
While affirming the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), the judgment clarified that restrictions under Article 19(2) must remain reasonable and cannot suppress fundamental rights.
Observing that fraternity is crucial for national unity and social cohesion, the Supreme Court has stated that public figures holding high constitutional offices cannot target any community based on religion, language, caste, or region.
The court stressed that no one, whether State or non-State actors, is permitted to vilify or denigrate any community through speeches, memes, cartoons, or visual art.
These remarks were made by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in a separate judgment addressing a plea challenging the release of the upcoming Netflix crime thriller Ghooskhor Pandat.
"It is constitutionally impermissible for anybody, be it the State or non-state actors, through any medium, such as, speeches, memes, cartoons, visual arts etc. to vilify and denigrate any community.
"It will be violative of the Constitution to target any particular community on the basis of religion, language, caste or region by whosoever he or she may be. This is particularly true for public figures occupying high constitutional office who have taken the solemn oath to uphold the Constitution," Justice Bhuyan wrote in a 39-page judgement.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Bhuyan on February 19 disposed of a plea seeking a stay on the film’s release after recording filmmaker Neeraj Pandey's affidavit, noting that "it is expected that there shall be a quietus to this controversy in all respects."
In his judgment, Justice Bhuyan highlighted that one of the solemn objectives of the Constitution, mentioned in the Preamble, is to promote fraternity among all citizens, assuring the dignity of the individual as well as the unity and integrity of the nation.
"Thus, 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 judge wrote.
Justice Bhuyan also underscored that liberty of thought and expression is a constitutional ideal, with Article 19(1)(a) conferring this fundamental right on all citizens.
"The reasonable restriction provided for in Article 19(2) must remain reasonable and not fanciful and oppressive. Article 19(2) cannot be allowed to overshadow the substantive rights under Article 19(1) including the right to freedom of speech and expression," he added.
