X has added a Community Note to the President of India’s post, stating that it goes against the constitutional principle of equality. In her post, the President wrote: “My government is working with full sensitivity for all — for Dalits, backward classes, marginalized and tribal communities.”
Social media users have raised questions, saying that when “for all” was already mentioned, there was no need to separately list specific communities. And if specific groups were being highlighted, why was the general category not mentioned? Users argue that this selective wording has triggered a fresh debate on equality, inclusiveness, and constitutional values.
This development comes at a time when a nationwide debate is already ongoing over alleged discrimination against the general category in the new UGC regulations. Although the Supreme Court’s recent stay on these regulations has provided temporary relief, the broader discussion on equality, representation, and constitutional fairness continues to intensify across social media platforms
What is a Community Note?
Community Notes is a feature on X (formerly Twitter) that allows verified and credible users to add contextual information to posts that may be misleading, incomplete, or require factual clarification. These notes are written, reviewed, and rated by a large and diverse group of contributors. If a note is found to be helpful and neutral, it becomes publicly visible under the post. The aim is to provide balanced context and help users better understand the issue.
What did the Community Note say in this case?
In this case, X added a Community Note under the President of India’s post, stating that the President represents all citizens of India, not only Dalits, backward classes, marginalized, and tribal communities. The note highlighted that according to the Constitution, the President must ensure equality and non-discriminatory representation of every citizen, irrespective of caste, category, or background.
Why did this Community Note matter?
The Community Note effectively pointed out that selectively highlighting specific social groups, after already stating “for all,” raises concerns about constitutional equality and inclusive representation. This intervention by X has triggered a nationwide debate on fairness, constitutional values, and the dignity of constitutional offices, especially at a time when the country is already witnessing intense discussions over UGC regulations and alleged discrimination against the general category.