New Delhi, Feb 9 (NationPress) A coalition of former civil servants, scholars, and social activists has approached the Supreme Court, advocating for the creation of guidelines to oversee statements made by constitutional functionaries that fail to align with constitutional morality.

The writ petition, submitted under Article 32 of the Constitution via advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, argued that the ongoing discriminatory and derogatory remarks by public office holders erode the fundamental values enshrined in the Constitution.

Referencing the Constituent Assembly Debates, the petition highlighted Acharya J.B. Kripalani’s caution that the principles in the Preamble are not solely legal, constitutional, or formal but are moral principles that must be embodied in political, administrative, and public life.

“Over seven decades later, we find ourselves in a political environment where the preambular principles are present in the text, yet the actions of administrators and constitutional functionaries frequently contradict their intent,” the plea stated, emphasizing that “the embodiment of these principles, as urged by Acharya Kripalani, has been lost both in thought and practice.”

The petition claimed that this disregard for constitutional morality has led to a series of disturbing public remarks by constitutional authorities and senior public officials in recent years.

It cited statements attributed to figures such as Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, BJP leader Nitesh Rane, and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, among others, noting that nearly 30 such statements have been identified through research.

While recognizing that political figures may adhere to various ideologies, the petition insisted that constitutional functionaries and public office holders are obligated by the Constitution to maintain fairness in action and restraint in speech.

“Constitutional functionaries and public officials are compelled by the Constitution to guarantee fairness in their actions. This implies that statements that are discriminatory or derogatory in nature, even if not classified as hate speech, should not be permissible from such individuals,” it added.

Clarifying the nature of the relief sought, the petition emphasized that it does not aim to restrict free speech or call for punitive measures against hate speech, which is governed by existing laws.

“This petition does not seek to restrict free speech or impose penalties for hate speech,” it clarified, stressing that the limited request is for the apex court to formulate guidelines, either through judicial review or a dialogic process, to ensure that public officials adhere to constitutional morality in their actions and public discourse.

The plea has listed the Union of India and the states of Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh as respondents.