The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a petition that sought mandatory guidelines governing the conduct of political leaders and public officials. The plea had cited alleged discriminatory remarks made by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant questioned the neutrality of the petition, observing that it appeared to single out specific individuals while overlooking others.
“The petitioners are eminent persons. We respect them. Ask the petitioners not to target any particular individual. Only selected individuals. Others very conveniently ignored. It is not fair,” the Chief Justice remarked during the hearing.
Court Suggests Broader Framework
While declining to entertain the plea in its current form, the Court indicated that the idea of a broader code of conduct for public figures could be worth examining.
The bench emphasized the importance of constitutional morality, mutual respect, and adherence to democratic values across political parties. It noted that public servants are already governed by an extensive framework of laws and service rules regulating conduct. A similar framework for public figures could be considered, the Court suggested.
Petition Withdrawn
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, requested permission to withdraw the plea. He informed the Court that a more comprehensive petition addressing the issue in a wider context may be filed in the future.
The petition had been filed by former Delhi Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung and Professor Roop Rekha Verma, both of whom the bench described as eminent individuals.
Context: Recent Controversy
The matter comes amid political controversy after a video was posted by the BJP’s Assam unit on social media platform X, showing Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma purportedly aiming a rifle at two individuals. The video was later deleted following criticism.
A day earlier, the Supreme Court had also declined to order a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into that specific incident, directing petitioners instead to approach the Gauhati High Court.
The bench expressed concern over what it termed a “disturbing trend” of directly approaching the Supreme Court without first seeking relief from High Courts.
“This is a disturbing trend that every matter ends up here. We have already deprived High Courts of environmental and commercial litigations,” the bench observed.
The Court’s observations underline its stance on procedural discipline and the need for uniform application of constitutional principles rather than selective targeting in politically sensitive matters.
Originally published on 24×7-news.com.
