Guwahati: The Supreme Court has held that it is constitutionally impermissible for anyone — whether a State actor or a private individual, to vilify or denigrate any community on the basis of religion, caste, language or region through speeches, memes, cartoons or visual art.
The observations were made in Atul Mishra v. Union of India, a petition challenging the title of a Netflix film originally named “Ghooskhor Pandat”. A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan closed the proceedings after the filmmakers agreed to change the title. However, in a separate opinion, Justice Bhuyan said it was necessary to restate constitutional principles relating to fraternity and free speech to avoid any misunderstanding.
Although no adjudication was required once the title was withdrawn, the Court emphasised that fraternity is a foundational constitutional value and an integral part of the Preamble. Referring to Article 51A(e), the judgment noted that every citizen has a fundamental duty to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood transcending religious, linguistic and regional diversities.
Justice Bhuyan recalled that B.R. Ambedkar had bracketed fraternity with liberty and equality, describing it as an essential constitutional ideal. Fraternity, the Court observed, signifies an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellow human beings. “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 judgment said.
The Court also referred to its earlier ruling on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which underscored that fraternity was conceived to nurture a sense of brotherhood among all individuals within society.
Against this backdrop, the Court declared that targeting any community through any medium is unconstitutional. “It is constitutionally impermissible for anybody, be it the State or non-State actors, through any medium, such as speeches, memes, cartoons or visual arts, to vilify and denigrate any community,” the judgment stated.
The Court stressed that the principle assumes greater significance when public figures holding high constitutional offices engage in such conduct. “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 observed.
The remarks acquire significance in the backdrop of recent controversies concerning speeches by public functionaries. Recently, a Bench led by the Chief Justice of India declined to entertain petitions under Article 32 seeking registration of an FIR in connection with alleged hate speech by the Assam Chief Minister, directing the petitioners to approach the High Court.
In the present case, the Court had initially expressed reservations about the film’s title — which translates as “corrupt Pandat”, observing that it appeared to single out a particular section of society. The concerns, the Court later noted, were “well-founded and valid”.
At the same time, the judgment underscored that filmmakers and artists are entitled to the protection of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Justice Bhuyan observed that artistic expression, including cinema and satire, plays a vital role in democratic discourse and cannot be curtailed merely because certain groups take offence.
Relying on precedents such as S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Imran Pratapgadhi case and the Padmavat judgment, the Court reiterated that freedom of expression cannot be held hostage to threats of protest or potential public disorder.
Films, the Court said, must be assessed from the standpoint of a reasonable viewer rather than hypersensitive individuals. It further reiterated that once a film has been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification, courts should ordinarily be slow to interfere with its exhibition.
Quoting from Imran Pratapgadhi, Justice Bhuyan observed that a 75-year-old Republic should not be so fragile as to feel threatened by a poem or a comic performance. “This would equally apply to the title of a movie as well. I say this and no more,” the judgment concluded.