Assam CM's 'Miyan' remark flagged as hate speech in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a petition filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, which alleges that statements made by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma constitute hate speech. The core of the petition revolves around remarks made by Sarma on January 27, 2026, where he allegedly stated that four to five lakh 'Miyan' voters would be removed from electoral rolls and that he and his party were 'directly against the Miya community' [2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 21]. Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind contends that the term 'Miya' is widely used in Assam as a derogatory reference to Bengali-origin Muslims [2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 19, 20, 22]. The organization argues that such statements from a person holding a constitutional office are not merely political rhetoric but amount to an aggravated form of hate speech that undermines constitutional values like equality, fraternity, and secularism [2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 19, 21]. The petition, filed as part of a broader hate speech case that has been pending before the Supreme Court since 2021, seeks the framing of strict regulatory guidelines for constitutional functionaries to prevent the misuse of public office to promote hatred or target specific communities [2, 3, 7, 8, 17, 19, 21]. Sarma has defended his remarks by citing a Supreme Court judgment from 2005 that scrapped the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983. He suggested that his use of the term 'Miya' aligns with the court's reference to "illegal immigrants" and its warning of a "silent and invidious demographic invasion" of Assam [9, 13, 16]. He has also stated that the term 'Miya' is used by the people themselves who have come from Bangladesh [18]. However, critics, including activists, lawyers, and other political parties, have condemned his statements as divisive, prejudicial, and alarmingly hateful [6, 12, 14, 20]. They argue that such rhetoric can fuel social exclusion, stigmatization, and hostility against minorities [7, 8, 11, 19, 21]. The Assam Civil Society has also filed an FIR against the Chief Minister for allegedly making communal and inflammatory remarks [22]. The Supreme Court has been actively hearing cases related to hate speech, with a bench having reserved its judgment on January 20, 2026, after seeking suggestions on effective measures to curb it [2, 11, 17, 21]. This case highlights the ongoing judicial scrutiny of inflammatory rhetoric by political leaders and the challenges in balancing free speech with the need to maintain public order and protect minority rights. The controversy is particularly sensitive in Assam, a state with a complex history of demographic, ethnic, and religious tensions [7]. The legal proceedings and public discourse surrounding these remarks are indicative of a larger national conversation about the limits of political speech and the responsibility of those in constitutional positions [7, 10, 11, 19]. Reports indicate that Sarma's controversial statements were made between January 24 and January 29, 2026, and were widely circulated in print and electronic media [22]. The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind's petition specifically references a January 27, 2026, speech [2, 10, 11, 21]. The organization's legal representative, Senior Advocate M.R. Shamshad, has emphasized that remarks from constitutional authorities that primarily carry no meaning other than hatred, hostility, and ill will cannot be tolerated [2, 8, 21]. The broader context involves a 2021 writ petition concerning hate speech, to which Jamiat's current application has been added [2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 17, 21]. The judiciary's careful consideration of this matter underscores its commitment to addressing the pervasive issue of hate speech within the Indian political landscape.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest