Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain petitions seeking action against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over alleged remarks targeting the Muslim community in the State.
The petitions were filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), CPI leader Annie Raja, Assamese scholar Hiren Gohain, and three other individuals. Senior advocates representing the petitioners—including Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Chander Uday Singh, and Nizam Pasha, sought immediate intervention, citing a “sustained pattern” of hate speeches that allegedly instigate hostility and violence against Muslims.
However, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi, and Vipul M. Pancholi emphasized that the petitions should first be heard by the jurisdictional Gauhati High Court.
“All these issues can be effectively adjudicated by the High Court. We see no reason to entertain this here,” the Court said, urging the High Court to prioritize the hearing given the petitioners’ claims of urgency.
CJI Kant stressed that while the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 32, bypassing High Courts undermines their constitutional role. “We will ask political parties to exercise restraint, but this is becoming a trend just before elections. Please come to us through the proper constitutional route,” he said.
The petitioners’ counsel, however, argued that the matter affects fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21, and that Sarma’s remarks—described in a controversial video and speeches, warrant immediate Supreme Court scrutiny. Senior advocate C. Uday Singh highlighted that the speeches were not limited to Assam but were also made in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, arguing for a pan-India perspective.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi described Sarma as a “habitual and repeated offender,” asserting that the Supreme Court is the ideal forum to exercise its Article 32 powers in cases of systemic hate speech. Nizam Pasha and C. Uday Singh contended that public rights would be diminished if the High Court failed to act swiftly and urged the Court to ensure an expeditious hearing. Pasha further highlighted that the High Court may not be an appropriate remedy as the petitioners are seeking SIT investigation against the Chief Minister.
Despite these defenses, Justice Pancholi and the Bench reiterated that forum-shopping cannot be permitted. “It cannot become a convenience to bypass High Courts. The entire effort undermines their authority,” CJI Kant observed. The Court noted that High Courts, under Article 226, possess wide powers to act on such matters, and emphasized respecting their jurisdiction as the first port of call.
The petitions stemmed from a video shared by the Assam BJP showing Sarma allegedly firing at members of a community, overlaid with phrases like “Point blank shot” and “No Mercy.” The pleas also referenced Sarma’s public statements about “Miya voters” in Assam, a term considered derogatory toward Muslims.
The Supreme Court, however, declined to intervene directly, disposing of the petitions and directing the petitioners to approach the Gauhati High Court for further action.