Supreme Court Ruling on Hate Speech and Community Defamation

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional for anyone, including state actors, to vilify communities through various forms of expression. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan highlighted the importance of maintaining respect for all communities, especially for public figures. This ruling follows the dismissal of a public interest litigation against the film 'Ghooskhor Pandat,' which was accused of defaming the Brahmin community. The filmmakers agreed to change the title, prompting the court to reaffirm the sanctity of freedom of speech. The court also addressed the need for caution in regulating artistic expressions, emphasizing that a mature democracy should not feel threatened by creative works.

By Narendra Chaudhary Feb 26, 2026, 11:43 IST

Supreme Court's Stance on Community Vilification

The Supreme Court has recently declared that it is unconstitutional for any individual or group, including state actors, to insult or demean any community through various forms of expression such as speeches, memes, or visual art.

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that this principle is especially relevant for public officials in high constitutional positions, who should refrain from targeting communities based on religion, language, caste, or region.

On February 19, a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Bhuyan dismissed a public interest litigation that challenged the title of the film Ghooskhor Pandat, which was accused of defaming the Brahmin community.

The court concluded the case after the filmmakers agreed to alter the film's title.

The term “pandat,” linked to the Brahmin community and meaning priest, combined with “ghooskhor,” which refers to someone who accepts bribes, sparked objections regarding the film.

In his separate judgment, Bhuyan noted that while no formal ruling was necessary after the title change, it was important to reaffirm that the right to freedom of speech and expression is fundamental and should not be interfered with lightly.

He referenced the Preamble of the Constitution, highlighting fraternity as a core objective that guides its philosophy.

Bhuyan pointed out that every citizen has a duty to foster harmony and a spirit of brotherhood that transcends religious, linguistic, and regional differences.

He also cited a Constitution Bench ruling regarding Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which described fraternity as a means to cultivate brotherhood among all individuals in society.

In this context, the judge stated: “It is constitutionally impermissible for anyone, whether state or non-state actors, to vilify or denigrate any community through any medium, including speeches, memes, cartoons, or visual arts.”

During the proceedings, the bench expressed concerns about the film's title, suggesting it could demean a segment of society.

However, the court also noted that once a film receives certification from the Central Board of Film Certification, it should be cautious about interfering with its release.

Bhuyan specifically referenced the caution from the Imran Pratapgadhi versus State of Gujarat case, which warned against the courts regulating or suppressing freedom of speech and expression.

He quoted the judgment's assertion that a 75-year-old Republic should not feel threatened by a poem or a comedic performance, stating, “this applies equally to a movie title.”

These remarks come in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision to not entertain petitions under Article 32 that sought to file a hate speech FIR against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for his controversial remarks directed at Bengali-origin Muslims in Assam, whom he referred to as “Miyas.”