Key Points
The Gauhati High Court has issued notices to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, the Union of India, the Assam government and the State DGP over petitions alleging hate speeches targeting Muslims.
The Division Bench orally observed that the statements cited by petitioners appeared to show a “fissiparous tendency”, but declined interim restraint at this stage and listed the matter after the Bihu holidays.
The petitions seek registration of an FIR, an independent SIT probe, and a declaration that the Chief Minister violated his constitutional oath; the Supreme Court had earlier directed petitioners to approach the High Court.
The Gauhati High Court on 26 February 2026 issued a notice to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma after hearing multiple petitions alleging that he made hate speeches targeting Muslims in the state, violating his constitutional position.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury directed that notices be served to the Chief Minister, the Union of India, the State of Assam and the State Director General of Police. The court also issued notice on the petitioners’ prayer for interim relief.
The petitions have been filed by Assamese scholar Dr Hirendranath Gohain and two others, as well as by political parties including the Congress and the Communist Party of India (Marxist). Earlier, some of the petitioners had approached the Supreme Court seeking action against Sarma. On 16 February 2026, a three judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined to entertain the pleas and asked the petitioners to move Gauhati High Court. The Supreme Court requested that the High Court consider listing and hearing the matter expeditiously if filed before it.
Before the High Court, senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Chander Uday Singh and Meenakshi Arora argued that the Sarma’s statements formed part of a sustained and habitual pattern of incitement against a minority community. They referred to a video shared on social media, later deleted, which depicted the Chief Minister firing a gun at animated figures wearing skull caps. The petitioners also cited reported statements about deleting “Miya” voters from electoral rolls, restricting voting rights, calling for social and economic boycott, and encouraging harassment.
The term “Miya” is a pejorative expression commonly used in Assam to refer to Bengali-speaking or Bengali-origin Muslims. Sarma stated that the word means “illegal immigrants” and has often used the term to differentiate ‘indigenous Assamese’ from ‘immigrants’.
The Bench orally remarked that the statements cited appeared to reflect a “fissiparous tendency”, but said that it would examine all submissions before drawing any conclusion. When the petitioners sought an ad interim order restraining Sarma from making further statements, the court declined to pass such an order at this stage, stating that notices would first be issued and the matter considered in due course. The court observed that issuing notice to the BJP was not necessary at this stage.
The petitions allege that despite public circulation of videos and speeches, the Assam Police has not registered a suo motu FIR. They argue that this inaction has created a “climate of impunity” and a chilling effect. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including observations that influential persons’ hate speech requires prompt police action, the petitioners have sought directions for registration of an FIR under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to promoting enmity, prejudicial assertions affecting national integration, and statements conducing to public mischief.
The pleas further seek the constitution of an independent Special Investigation Team and, in one case, a commission chaired by a former High Court judge to monitor the probe. They also seek a declaration that the Chief Minister violated his constitutional oath under Article 164(3) read with the Third Schedule of the Constitution by allegedly engaging in hate speech and communal incitement.
In court, Singhvi argued that Sarma’s conduct was inconsistent with the constitutional mandate of secularism and equality. He submitted that repeated remarks targeting a specific community were contrary to Articles 14 and 15 and to the spirit of the Preamble. Singh contended that certain remarks, including references to “Miya Muslims” and statements about electoral rolls, were deeply divisive and could undermine social cohesion. Arora submitted that statements attributed to Sarma had the potential to create law and order concerns and were incompatible with the obligations of a constitutional officeholder.
The petitions also refer to earlier public statements allegedly made by Sarma in Assam and other States, including remarks on issues such as “love jihad”, “flood jihad”, religious conversion and demographic change. The petitioners contend that these instances demonstrate continuity and pattern rather than isolated comments.
In its 2020 order on hate speech, the Supreme Court noted that no political leader or constitutional officeholder should act in a manner that harms the secular ethos of the Constitution, particularly when elections are near. However, the apex court emphasised that High Courts possess wide powers and should not be bypassed in the first instance.
The Gauhati High Court will now examine the submissions of all parties, including responses from the Chief Minister and the governments concerned. The matter remains contentious with the Assam Assembly Election around the corner. The matter has been listed after the Bihu holidays, with the next hearing scheduled for 21 April 2026.
[DS]
Suggested Reading: