FOUR ASSAM RESIDENTS MOVE SUPREME COURT, SEEK FIR AND SIT INVESTIGATION AGAINST CM HIMANTA BISWA SARMA OVER ALLEGED HATE SPEECH:

A fresh writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking urgent intervention against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over a series of alleged hate speeches targeting a minority community in the State. The petition has been moved by Dr. Hiren Gohain, a retired professor and noted public intellectual; Harekrishna Deka, former Director General of Police of Assam; Paresh Chandra Malakar, Editor-in-Chief of Northeast Now; and senior advocate Santanu Borthakur.

The petitioners allege that the Chief Minister has repeatedly delivered speeches and made public statements that incite discrimination, social and economic boycott, and violence against Bengali-origin Muslims in Assam. The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by advocate Rupali Samuel. She requested that the case be tagged with an earlier petition raising similar concerns, and the Chief Justice agreed to list it accordingly. A day earlier, petitions filed by the CPI(M) and CPI seeking registration of an FIR and a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe against Sarma had also been mentioned before the Court.

According to the present petition, Sarma has, through public speeches, press interactions, and social media posts, allegedly promoted enmity and hatred on grounds of religion, language, place of birth, and residence. The plea states that he used expressions described as derogatory slurs against Bengali-origin Muslims and called for their social and economic boycott. It further alleges that on January 25 and 27, 2026, while commenting on the summary revision of electoral rolls in Assam, the Chief Minister made remarks suggesting selective issuance of notices under the revision exercise and advocated curtailing the voting influence of the minority community. The petition also claims that he admitted to directing party workers to lodge complaints against members of the community with the intent to harass them.

The plea refers to additional statements attributed to Sarma in which he allegedly urged people to create conditions that would make it difficult for the targeted community to continue living in Assam. It cites remarks said to advocate non-cooperation and civil disobedience against the group, including calls for denying them access to land, vehicles, and livelihood opportunities. The petition also mentions a video posted on February 7, 2026, on the X account of the Assam BJP unit, which allegedly showed the Chief Minister holding a gun and using violent expressions in a context said to target persons wearing attire associated with the minority community.

The petitioners contend that despite the wide circulation of these speeches, which they argue prima facie disclose offences relating to promotion of enmity and incitement to violence, no suo motu FIR has been registered. They argue that such inaction by law enforcement, particularly when the alleged speaker occupies the highest executive office in the State, fosters impunity and deters victims and witnesses from coming forward.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) and subsequent orders in Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India, the petition asserts that once speech crosses into hate speech, the State is under a mandatory obligation to act and register FIRs, even in the absence of a formal complaint. The petition seeks directions for immediate cessation of the alleged hate speech and action against the Chief Minister for violation of his constitutional oath under Article 164(3) read with the Third Schedule.

Among the reliefs sought are the constitution of a Special Investigation Team to conduct an independent probe or, alternatively, the appointment of a commission headed by a former Supreme Court judge to supervise and monitor the investigation and recommend further legal measures. The petitioners argue that urgent intervention is necessary to prevent escalation of communal tensions and to safeguard constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. The petition has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Yash Vijay.