NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a plea seeking mandatory guidelines for public officials and political leaders, which cited alleged discriminatory remarks by Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma and UP CM Yogi Adityanath.A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, questioned the neutrality of the petition. While acknowledging the eminence of the petitioners—former Delhi LG Najeeb Jung and Professor Roop Rekha Verma—the Court noted that the plea seemed to target specific individuals while overlooking others.“The petitioners are eminent persons. We respect them. Ask the petitioners not to target any particular individual. Only selected individuals. Others very conveniently ignored. It is not fair,” CJI Kant said, as quoted by ANI.The apex court suggested the framing of a mandatory code of conduct for ‘public figures’ similar to the one applicable to ‘public servants.’ “We would like to impress upon all political parties the importance of constitutional morality, values, and mutual respect. These principles must be applied uniformly across the board, that is what we expect. When it comes to public figures and public servants, the position is different. For public servants, there is a wealth of laws, rules and mandates that govern conduct, everything is already in place. Some similar code of conduct,” CJI Kant added.Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, sought to withdraw the petition and submitted that he would come up with a more comprehensive plea on the issue.The development comes after the Bharatiya Janata Party Assam unit posted a video on X showing Sarma purportedly aiming a rifle at two people, one wearing a skullcap and another with a beard. The video was later deleted following backlash.Just a day prior, the Apex Court had refused a separate SIT probe into this specific incident, directing the petitioners to the Gauhati High Court instead. The bench expressed concern over the “disturbing trend” of bypassing High Courts and approaching the Supreme Court directly, especially during election cycles.“This is a disturbing trend that every matter ends up here. We have already deprived HCs of environmental and commercial litigations,” the bench said.