People in public office should not blabber disparaging things

Subject: Polity

Context:

The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on whether free speech by public functionaries, including inter alia ministers, MLAs, MPs, should have greater restrictions than those imposed by Article 19 (2).
The Five-Judge Constitution Bench consisting of Justices S A Nazeer, B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and B V Nagarathna gave this verdict.

What was the verdict of the bench:

People holding public office should exercise self-restriction and not blabber things which are disparaging or insulting to other countrymen.
There is no need to formulate a separate code of conduct for public functionaries.
There is always a civil remedy available to citizens on account of a public functionary making a speech that affects someone.
Irrespective of what Article 19(2) may say, there is a constitutional culture in the country where there is an inherent limitation or a restriction on what people holding responsible positions say.

What is Article 19(2) of the constitution:

Article 19 (2) relates to the powers of the State to make laws imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of the country, public order, decency, morality etc.

What are some important Judgements on Freedom of Speech vs. Hate comments:

RangilaRasool case:
RangilaRasool was a tract brought out by a Hindu publisher that had made disparaging remarks about the Prophet’s private life.
Cases against the first pamphlet, filed under Section 153A, were dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which examined the question whether targeting religious figures is different from targeting religions.
This debate in interpretation prompted the colonial government to enact Section 295A with a wider scope to address these issues.

Ramji Lal Modi v State of Uttar Pradesh:

The Supreme Court upheld the law on the grounds that it was brought in to preserve “public order”.The constitutionality of Section 295A was challenged.
Public order is an exemption to the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to religion recognised by the Constitution.

RamlalPuri v State of Madhya Pradesh:

In 1973, the Supreme Court said the test to be applied is whether the speech in question offends the “ordinary man of common sense” and not the “hypersensitive man”.
However, these determinations are made by the court and the distinction can often be vague and vary from one judge to the other.

BaragurRamachandrappa v State of Karnataka:

A 2007 decision of the Supreme Court, “a pragmatic approach” was invoked in interpreting Section 295A.
The state government had issued a notification banning Dharmakaarana, a Kannada novel on the ground that it was hate speech, invoking a gamut of provisions including Section 295A.