The Supreme Court has observed that it is constitutionally impermissible for anyone, including State and non-State actors, to vilify or denigrate any community through speeches, memes, cartoons or visual art. The Court stressed that public figures holding high constitutional offices, such as ministers, must not target any community on the basis of religion, caste, language or region, as it would violate the Constitution. The remarks assume relevance particularly in the context of recent controversy regarding the speeches made by the Assam Chief Minister. Recently, a bench led by the Chief Justice of India had refused to entertain Article 32 pleas seeking hate speech FIR against the Assam CM, and relegated the parties to the High Court. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations in his separate judgment in the case petition challenging the Netflix film's title “Ghooskhor Pandat.” A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Bhuyan closed the case after the makers agreed to change the title. Justice Bhuyan stated that although no adjudication was strictly required after the title was withdrawn, it was necessary to restate the constitutional principles governing fraternity and freedom of expression to avoid any misunderstanding. Fraternity As Constitutional Value The Court emphasized that fraternity is one of the foundational objectives of the Constitution and forms 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. Dr. Ambedkar highlighted the concept of fraternity and bracketed it with liberty and equality "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. Reference was made to the Supreme Court's 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." Against this backdrop, the Court stated: "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. "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. Free Speech And Films At the same time, the Court highlighted that filmmakers enjoy the protection of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Justice Bhuyan noted that artistic expression, including films and satire, plays an important role in democratic discourse and cannot be suppressed merely because certain groups object to it. Relying on earlier 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 emphasized that films must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable viewer and not that of hypersensitive individuals. It also reiterated that once a film has been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification, courts should ordinarily be slow to interfere 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 said. Case : Atul Mishra v Union of India Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 193 Click here to read the judgment