New Delhi: The Supreme Court has observed that it is violative of the constitution of India, for anyone, including State and non-State actors, to vilify or denigrate any community through speeches, memes, cartoons or visual art, reports LiveLaw.The apex court stressed that public figures holding high constitutional offices (such as ministers) must not target any community for their religion, caste, language or region, as it would be constitutionally impermissible.Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made his observations in a separate judgment that he wrote, in the case challenging a film on a streaming network, titled Ghooskhor Pandat. The two-judge bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Bhuyan closed the case after the makers agreed to change the title. But Justice Bhuyan pushed ahead, saying that that while no adjudication was strictly required after the title was withdrawn by film makers, it was necessary to restate and underline the constitutional principles governing fraternity and freedom of expression. The word fraternity figures in the Preamble and freedom of expression constitutes a fundamental right. He argued for always reconciling the two, or being in sync with both, in the true spirit of what the constitution asks its citizens to do.‘Fraternity’Justice Bhuyan emphasised that fraternity is one of the foundational objectives of the constitution and is a significant part of the guiding philosophy of the Preamble. Referring to Article 51A(e), the Court noted that every citizen has a fundamental duty to promote harmony and brotherhood transcending religious, linguistic and regional diversities. “It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellow human beings. 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,” Justice Bhuyan wrote. He also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case concerning Section 6A of the Citizenship Act which emphasised that fraternity “was conceived as a concept intended to cultivate a sense of brotherhood amongst all individuals within society.” The court went onto say:“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 court underscored that this principle assumes greater significance when public figures holding high constitutional offices engage in such conduct, reports LiveLaw. “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.”The court said the concerns expressed earlier by the bench regarding the film title were therefore “well-founded and valid.” During the hearing, the court had questioned the film’s title – which translates as ‘corrupt Pandat’ – for denigrating a particular section of society – Brahmins, in this case – referred to as Pandats in certain contexts.‘Freedom of speech and expression’The court simultaneously highlighted that there is freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.Justice Bhuyan noted that artistic expression, is important in democratic discourse. It cannot be suppressed merely because certain groups object to it. Relying on precedents including S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, Viacom 18 (Padmavat case), the court reiterated that freedom of expression cannot be held hostage to threats of protest or public disorder. The court emphasised that films must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable viewer and not that of hypersensitive individuals. The court importantly underscored that once a film has been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification, courts should be guarded when they consider interfering with its exhibition. Justice Bhuyan particularly highlighted the caution expressed in Imran Pratapgadhi that courts must not be seen to regulate or stifle the freedom of speech and expression. The observations in Imran Pratapgadhi that a 75-year old Republic should not be so shaky as to feel threatened by a poem or comic show were also extracted. “This would equally apply to the title of a movie as well. I say this and no more,” Justice Bhuyan concluded.The observations in the context of the Supreme Court refusing to consider pleas seeking hate speech FIR against the Assam CM, Himanta Biswa Sarma under Article 32. The anger against the recent controversy regarding the speeches made by the Assam Chief Minister against specific sections of the citizenry have caused an uproar. A bench led by the Chief Justice of India had directed the parties to approach the High Court in the state.The observations came to the fore as Chief Justice of India Surya Kant just a day before, on Monday (February 23), as per The Hindu, referred to “general directions” issued by the Supreme Court in a 2018 judgment to the Centre and states to prevent and prosecute cow vigilantism and mobocracy as “unmanageable”