Fraternity in the Indian Constitution – Meaning, Importance

Context

• The Supreme Court of India examined concerns regarding public statements made by constitutional authorities that allegedly stigmatise communities and normalise discriminatory governance.
• The case arose from a petition highlighting speeches and remarks by Chief Ministers, senior bureaucrats, and police officials that were claimed to erode constitutional values.

Fraternity in the Indian context

• Fraternity as a constitutional ideal: Along with liberty and equality, fraternity forms a core constitutional value, intended to foster social cohesion and national unity.
• Context of inclusion: The Constitution’s framers emphasized fraternity in response to deeply entrenched social hierarchies and inequalities in Indian society
• Ambedkar’s view: Bhim Rao Ambedkar underlined that liberty, equality, and fraternity are interdependent, describing them as the foundational pillars of Indian democracy.

Fraternity in the Constitution

• Preamble: Fraternity is explicitly enshrined alongside justice, liberty, and equality as a guiding principle of the Constitution.
• Fundamental Duties: Article 51A, introduced by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976 and expanded by the 86th Amendment in 2002, reinforces fraternity as a civic obligation.
• Article 51A(e): It places a duty on every citizen to promote harmony and cultivate a spirit of common brotherhood among all Indians.

Concerns over discriminatory and divisive speech

• Embedding stigma at social level: Public statements by holders of constitutional office have used generalised descriptions of communities in connection with crime, illegality, demographic threat, or cultural incompatibility.
  • Such reduced diverse social groups into homogeneous stereotypes, which contradicts the constitutional vision of individual dignity under Articles 14 and 21
• Legitimation of exclusionary practices: Discriminatory narratives by senior public officials risk becoming administrative common sense.
  • The Court has cautioned that governance influenced by such rhetoric can lead to selective enforcement of laws, unequal access to public services and institutional bias in everyday administration.
• Erosion of Public Confidence: Equal citizenship under the Constitution rests not only on legal rights but also on symbolic assurance that the State belongs equally to all.
  • When constitutional authorities make statements that appear to rank citizens by religion, ethnicity, language and migration status the public trust in State neutrality is weakened.
• Chilling Effect on Vulnerable Groups: The concept of a “chilling effect” refers to the indirect suppression of rights without formal prohibition.
  • Divisive speech by authorities can cause vulnerable groups to avoid public participation, refrain from exercising free speech and hesitate in approaching law enforcement or public institutions.

Institutionalising higher standards of speech for Constitutional functionaries

• Formal recognition of elevated speech obligations: Constitutional office-holders should be institutionally recognised as bearers of State authority, whose speech is qualitatively different from private expression.
  • A formal doctrine of “heightened responsibility of speech” can be evolved through judicial interpretation and executive codes of conduct, without altering free speech guarantees.
• Executive Codes of Ethical Speech Conduct: The Union and States can adopt non-punitive, principle-based speech codes for Ministers, senior civil servants, and police leadership.
  • Such codes should Prohibit language that collectively attributes blame, criminality, or disloyalty to communities.
• Post-Speech Accountability Rather Than Prior Restraint: As cautioned by Justice B. V. Nagarathna, regulation must avoid prior restraint and pre-clearance of speech.
  • Instead, accountability mechanisms should focus on institutional review after speech and corrective advisories, apologies, or clarifications where constitutional values are compromised.
• Constitutional Morality as an Interpretive Lens: The Court has identified constitutional morality as the appropriate benchmark for evaluating official speech.
  • This requires consistency with
    • Equality before law (Article 14)
    • Secularism as a basic feature.
    • Dignity of individuals and communities (Article 21)
  • Development of Judicially Articulated Principles: Instead of rigid rules, the judiciary can evolve context-sensitive principles, such as Nature of the office held, Context and audience of the speech, Likely institutional and social impact.
  • Administrative Sensitisation and Training: Regular constitutional ethics training should be institutionalised for senior civil servants, police leadership and public information officers.
  • Training should focus on how official speech influences law enforcement behaviour, shapes institutional culture and affects access to justice for vulnerable groups.

Sharing is caring!