Relevance: GS Paper II (Polity: Constitutional Values, Fraternity) & GS Paper IV (Ethics: Public Office Accountability)

Source: The Hindu

1. Context: The Supreme Court’s Warning

A three-judge Bench led by CJI Surya Kant (along with Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi) has raised a red flag against “toxic” statements made by high constitutional functionaries—Chief Ministers, Ministers, and senior police officers.

The Court observed that such speeches are not merely “political rhetoric” but are dangerously seeping into the administrative machinery, potentially legitimizing discriminatory governance.

2. Key Concepts & Analysis

1. Fraternity: The “Forgotten” Constitutional Duty

• The Concept: The Preamble lists Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity as the trinity of Indian democracy. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously warned, “Without fraternity, liberty and equality would not become a natural course of things.”
• The SC Observation: The Court emphasized that Fraternity (a sense of common brotherhood) is not just a lofty ideal but a mandatory duty for leaders. When a CM or a top cop speaks against a specific community, they break this bond, making citizens feel like strangers in their own land.

Constitutional Morality: Beyond the Written Law

• The Meaning: It means adhering to the spirit of the Constitution (inclusivity, respect for diversity), not just the letter of the law. It requires leaders to act with restraint and avoid abusing their power.
• The Violation: The Bench noted that political parties must follow “Constitutional Morality.” When leaders use their office to stigmatize a community, they violate their Oath of Office (to bear “true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution).

The Danger: Administrative Bias

• Civil Service Neutrality: The core value of a bureaucrat is neutrality. The petition highlighted a dangerous trend: when political masters use “hate rhetoric,” it trickles down to the police and administration.
• Consequence: This leads to biased law enforcement and a culture of “collective blame,” where the state apparatus acts with prejudice against specific groups, eroding the Rule of Law.

3. Ethical Dimensions

• Role Modeling: Leaders serve as the moral compass of a nation. If they normalize “toxic speech,” the public follows suit, leading to social unrest.
• Thought vs. Action: Justice Nagarathna raised a philosophical point: “The origin of speech is thought. How can we control thought?”
  • The Answer: While courts cannot police thoughts, they must regulate the consequences of speech when it comes from powerful public offices that can trigger violence or discrimination.

UPSC Value Box

Why this matters for Governance:

• Social Capital: Divisive speech destroys trust between communities, which eventually hurts economic stability and investment.
• Trust in State: If the police are seen as biased due to leadership rhetoric, citizens lose faith in the justice system.

Key Related Judgments:

• Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP (2023): A Constitution Bench held that a Minister’s statement cannot be attributed “vicariously” to the government. The current bench is revisiting the impact of such speech on administration.
• S. R. Bommai Case (1994): Secularism (and by extension, fraternity) is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

Summary

The Supreme Court has flagged the dangerous normalization of “toxic speech” by constitutional functionaries. By invoking the Preamble’s ideal of Fraternity, the Court aims to ensure that those in power do not use their office to legitimize discrimination. A leader’s speech must be a bridge that connects the people, not a wall that divides them.

One Line Wrap: Constitutional Morality demands that a leader’s tongue be as unbiased as the law they enforce.

Q. “Constitutional Morality is not just for the courts but a guiding principle for political leaders and administrators.” Discuss in the light of recent Supreme Court observations on the need for fraternity in public discourse. (10 Marks, 150 Words)

Model Hints

• Introduction: Define Constitutional Morality (adherence to core values like inclusivity) and mention the recent SC observation on “toxic speech.”
• Body:
  • Fraternity as Duty: Explain how fraternity ensures dignity and unity (Ref: Preamble & Ambedkar).
  • Impact on Administration: Discuss how divisive speech affects Civil Service Neutrality and the Rule of Law.
  • Ethical Aspect: Mention the Oath of Office and the leader’s role as a moral exemplar.
• Conclusion: Conclude that without fraternity, democracy fails. Suggest a strictly enforced “Code of Conduct” for high officeholders.