The Gauhati High Court on February 26 issued notice on a public interest litigation (PIL) and two connected matters seeking directions to restrain Himanta Biswa Sarma from allegedly making hate speeches against minority communities in Assam.
As per a report in LiveLaw, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury directed issuance of notice to the Union of India, the State of Assam, the Director General of Police, and the Chief Minister. The Bench also issued notice on the prayer for interim relief but declined to pass an immediate restraining order at this stage. The matters are now listed in April, after the Bihu holidays.
Allegation of inaction and “climate of impunity”
The PIL, filed by noted Assamese scholar Hiren Gohain and two others, alleges that despite the existence of publicly available videos of the Chief Minister’s alleged speeches, the Assam Police has not registered a suo-moto FIR.
According to the petitioners, this inaction fosters a “climate of impunity” and produces a chilling effect on minorities. They argue that when statements are made by a constitutional functionary occupying the highest executive office in the State, the threshold of accountability must necessarily be higher.
Earlier in February, the Supreme Court of India had asked petitioners who had directly approached it seeking action against Sarma to move the High Court instead, following which the present proceedings were instituted.
Arguments made before the bench
- Violation of oath, secularism, and constitutional morality
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that the Chief Minister’s speeches reflect a “consistent, continuous, and habitual” pattern of conduct incompatible with his constitutional oath.
Singhvi contended that the alleged remarks violated the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, as well as the Preamble’s commitments to secularism and fraternity. He further invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alleging that the speeches attracted penal consequences.
Referring to earlier statements allegedly made in 2023 in Chhattisgarh concerning “love jihad” and unlawful religious conversions, Singhvi argued that the Chief Minister’s rhetoric had “pan-India implications.” He criticised what he described as an invocation of Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of civil disobedience while targeting a specific community, asserting that such reinterpretation was constitutionally impermissible.
Singhvi concluded by urging the Court to direct registration of an FIR and to restrain further speeches of a similar nature.
- Alleged remarks targeting ‘Miya Muslims’
Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, appearing for Dr. Hiren Gohain, submitted that the petitioners had approached the Court with “great anguish,” emphasising that the Chief Minister represents every citizen of the State.
Singh referred to remarks allegedly made since 2023 concerning “Miya Muslims” — a term historically associated with Bengali-origin Muslims in Assam. He cited a February 8, 2024 speech in the Assam Legislative Assembly during discussions on the “Mission Basundhara” scheme, where the Chief Minister allegedly stated that those forcibly converted to Islam during the Mughal period could regain indigenous status by returning to their “original identity.”
He further submitted that references to the “Bangladesh issue” functioned as a “dog whistle,” converting ethnic and linguistic anxieties into religious polarisation.
Among other allegations cited before the Court were statements describing alleged “flood jihad” in relation to flooding in Guwahati and comments referring to certain university architecture as “Mecca-like.” Singh argued that such remarks stigmatise a community and erode constitutional fraternity.
The petitioners also alleged statements concerning deletion of “four to five lakh Miya voters” during special revision of electoral rolls in Assam and remarks allegedly encouraging social and economic harassment of the community. These submissions were presented to demonstrate what counsel described as a pattern of denigration.
- Reliance on Supreme Court precedents
Counsel relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Amish Devgan v. Union of India, which underscored that when hate speech is made by influential persons, police authorities have a duty to act suo motu and not await formal complaints.
Reference was also made to the so-called “Ghooskhor Pandit” film matter, in which Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that public figures holding high constitutional offices must refrain from targeting communities on the basis of religion, caste, language, or region, as such conduct would violate constitutional values. Detailed report may be read here.
Connected Petition: Law and order concerns
Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing in a connected matter, argued that a sitting Chief Minister cannot make statements that create a law-and-order situation. She referred to an alleged response by Sarma to remarks made by former U.S. President Barack Obama in 2023 about minority rights in India, submitting that the Chief Minister’s response was dismissive and polarising.
Arora further alleged that statements blaming “Miya” Muslims for rising vegetable prices and demographic projections lacked evidentiary backing and contributed to community stigmatisation. She also cited an incident where the Chief Minister allegedly targeted a journalist’s religious identity during a press interaction.
According to Arora, such statements, when made by the head of the State government, could incite hostility and must be restrained in keeping with constitutional morality.
Reliefs sought in the PIL
The petition seeks:
- Registration of an FIR under Sections 196 (promoting enmity), 197 (imputations prejudicial to national integration), and 353 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita;
- Constitution of an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT);
- Appointment of a commission chaired by a former High Court judge to monitor the SIT probe;
- A declaration that the Chief Minister has violated his constitutional oath of office.
The petitioners argue that the High Court’s intervention is necessary to dispel the perception that hate speech in Assam operates with “complete impunity.”
Court’s Observations: Notice issued, interim relief deferred
During the hearing, Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar orally remarked that the statements read out before the Court appeared to reflect a “fissiparous tendency”, as reported by LiveLaw. However, when the petitioners pressed for an ad-interim order restraining the Chief Minister from making further statements, the Bench responded:
“At this stage, let notices be issued first. It will be a normal restraint while this petition is pending consideration. Notice for both the main prayers and ad-interim prayers. We will keep it after the Bihu holidays.”
The Court also clarified that issuing notice to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was not necessary at this stage.
Next hearing
With notice now issued to the Union, State, DGP, and the Chief Minister, the matter will be taken up in April. The Court has not passed any interim restraining order but indicated that the issue of interim relief will be considered after responses are filed.
Related:
When Protest becomes a “Threat”: Inside the Supreme Court hearing on Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA detention
Hate Speech Before the Supreme Court: From judicial activism to institutional closure