SC Directs Hate Speech FIR Pleas Against Assam CM to High Court

On Monday, February 16, 2026, the Supreme Court of India addressed a batch of petitions seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. The pleas concerned various speeches and public remarks by Sarma, which allegedly constitute hate speech offenses. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi heard the matters. The petitioners, including the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India leader Annie Raja, and other individuals, had directly approached the apex court under Article 32 of the Constitution. They flagged Sarma's controversial comments on 'Miya Muslims,' his alleged calls for their economic boycott, and a recent video posted on X (formerly Twitter) by BJP Assam, which purportedly showed Sarma 'shooting at persons who are visibly Muslims'. Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing some petitioners, argued that Sarma was a 'repeat offender' and that the case involved a violation of his oath of office, making it suitable for direct Supreme Court intervention. He also contended that the High Court might not be an appropriate remedy for an SIT investigation against a sitting Chief Minister. However, the Supreme Court firmly declined to entertain the petitions directly, instead instructing the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional Gauhati High Court. The bench, led by CJI Surya Kant, expressed strong disapproval of the increasing trend of litigants bypassing High Courts and directly approaching the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice termed this a 'disturbing trend' and, on an earlier occasion, described it as a 'calculated effort to demoralise High Courts'. He emphasized the constitutional framework that provides for High Courts to effectively adjudicate such issues and stressed that 'all these issues can be effectively adjudicated by the jurisdictional High Court'. The Supreme Court underscored that directly moving the apex court first undermines the authority and jurisdiction of the High Courts. The CJI observed, 'Wherever the elections come, this Court becomes a political battleground,' appealing to political parties to engage in elections based on 'mutual respect and self-restraint'. While disposing of the matters, the bench requested the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court to grant an expeditious hearing to the petitioners, ensuring that their grievances would be addressed in a timely manner. The Court stated it saw 'no good reason' to entertain the pleas at its level. Previously, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma had defended his 'Miya' remarks, asserting that they were based on observations made by the Supreme Court in its 2005 judgment that scrapped the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act (IMDT Act). Sarma had stated that his comments reflected the apex court's warnings of a 'silent and invidious demographic invasion' of Assam due to illegal migration, particularly from Bangladesh. He argued that acknowledging these judicial concerns could not be labeled as communal or hateful, and the state's actions were aimed at protecting Assam's identity and security. Organizations like Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind had also filed pleas, arguing that the term 'Miya' is derogatory and, when used by a high constitutional office holder, amounts to a deliberate attempt to spread hatred and stigmatize a community. This decision by the Supreme Court reinforces the importance of the judicial hierarchy and the role of High Courts as the primary forum for such legal redressal, especially when fundamental rights are concerned. It highlights the Court's stance against what it perceives as an overburdening of the apex court with matters that can be adequately handled by lower judicial bodies.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest