Supreme Court Remarks: Why Politics Demands a Thick Skin

The Supreme Court recently made a pointed observation that those entering politics must have a “thick skin” to withstand criticism and public scrutiny. The statement came during a hearing on free speech and political disputes, sparking discussion on how leaders balance personal dignity with democratic debate. In a country where politics is deeply intertwined with public sentiment, the court’s words highlight an important reality of public life.

The bench noted that political leaders, by the very nature of their role, are exposed to constant criticism. From policy decisions to personal conduct, everything becomes a matter of public discussion. The court underlined that while free speech is protected, political figures cannot expect to be shielded from sharp remarks or opposition attacks. This is seen as part of the democratic process where diverse opinions must coexist.

At the same time, the court clarified that freedom of speech does not give citizens the right to spread hate or defamatory content. The challenge lies in drawing a line between legitimate criticism and harmful speech. For politicians, the expectation is to absorb the former while seeking legal remedies only when reputational harm crosses boundaries.

For smaller cities like Nagpur, Jaipur, or Lucknow, where politics is closely tied to community identity, such remarks resonate strongly. Local leaders often face direct criticism from their own neighborhoods or constituencies. The Supreme Court’s stance reminds them that accountability is inseparable from public office, and tolerance for differing views is a cornerstone of democracy.

In the end, the court’s observation captures a larger truth: politics is not for the thin-skinned. Those who aspire to lead must be prepared to accept scrutiny, criticism, and even discomfort as part of their journey. It is this ability to listen, endure, and respond constructively that ultimately strengthens democratic institutions.