The complaints, both dated April 27, 2026, concern speeches allegedly delivered by Union Minister of State for Education and BJP MP Sukanta Majumdar in Panihati, North 24 Parganas on March 29, 2026, and BJP candidate Jagannath Chattopadhyay in Suri, Birbhum on April 9, 2026.

According to CJP, both speeches amounted to appeals on religious grounds, promotion of hostility between communities, and attempts to influence the electoral process through communal polarisation. The organisation has sought intervention from election authorities and police officials, urging registration of criminal cases, issuance of show-cause notices, and other corrective measures.

CJP’s complaint against Sukanta Majumdar

On April 27, 2026, in its complaint addressed to the Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal and the Commissioner of Police, Barrackpore, CJP alleged that Sukanta Majumdar delivered what it described as an explicitly communal and divisive speech during an election campaign in Panihati on March 29.

According to the complaint, Majumdar defended the idea of being “communal” as necessary for the protection of religion and culture and asserted that secularism had failed after Partition. CJP contends that these remarks amounted to a direct rejection of constitutional secularism and sought to create hostility toward a religious minority.

The complaint reproduces portions of the speech in which Majumdar allegedly stated that understanding the “true condition” of West Bengal required visiting districts with significant Muslim populations, specifically naming Malda and Murshidabad. CJP argues that these references portrayed Muslim-majority areas as symbols of decline and disorder and were intended to provoke suspicion and hostility against members of the minority community.

The organisation further alleges that Majumdar linked the political participation of Muslims with adverse consequences for Hindus by claiming that the Trinamool Congress deliberately allotted electoral tickets to Muslim leaders and by alleging restrictions on the use of microphones during Durga Puja celebrations in certain areas.

According to CJP, these remarks created a narrative in which the political representation of Muslims was portrayed as a threat to Hindu cultural and religious practices. The complaint argues that such rhetoric was designed to influence voters by invoking religious identity and fears of cultural displacement.

Allegations of religious polarisation

CJP maintains that the Panihati speech relied heavily on references to religion, communal violence, and Partition. According to the complaint, the repeated invocation of these themes was intended to establish a binary opposition between Hindu cultural interests and Muslim political participation.

The organisation contends that describing secularism as a failed project and presenting communal identification as necessary for cultural survival undermines the constitutional commitment to equality and secular governance. It argues that these statements sought to legitimise exclusionary politics and encourage electoral mobilisation based on religious identity.

Particular emphasis is placed on references to Malda and Murshidabad. CJP alleges that these districts were singled out not for administrative or developmental reasons but because of their demographic composition. The complaint argues that such references encouraged audiences to associate Muslim-majority regions with social or political deterioration and thereby contributed to communal stereotyping.

The complaint further characterises allegations regarding restrictions on Durga Puja festivities as attempts to create resentment and distrust toward minority communities. According to CJP, these statements transformed a religious and cultural issue into a political weapon during an election campaign.

Legal grounds raised against Majumdar

The complaint alleges that Majumdar’s speech violated provisions of the Model Code of Conduct prohibiting activities that aggravate differences or create hatred between religious communities.

CJP also invokes Sections 123(2), 123(3), 123(3A), and 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. According to the complaint, the speech amounted to undue influence upon voters, appeals on religious grounds, promotion of enmity between communities, and attempts to foster hatred during an election.

The organisation further alleges violations of Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 352, and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It argues that the speech promoted enmity between groups, undermined constitutional values, insulted a religious community, provoked public disorder, and disseminated claims intended to create fear and hostility.

The entire complaint may be read here:

Complaint against Jagannath Chattopadhyay

In a separate complaint on April 27, 2026 addressed to the Chief Electoral Officer, the District Magistrate of Birbhum, the Superintendent of Police, Birbhum, and the Inspector of Police, Suri Police Station, CJP raised allegations against BJP candidate Jagannath Chattopadhyay in connection with a campaign speech delivered in Suri on April 9, 2026.

According to the complaint, Chattopadhyay repeatedly framed the election as a battle to save Hindu culture and religious symbols. CJP alleges that he appealed directly to religious sentiments by urging voters to support the BJP in order to protect practices and symbols including Kanthi, Tilak, Panchali observances, Satyanarayan rituals, Shakha, Pola, Sindoor, and various places of worship.

The complaint reproduces portions of the speech in which Chattopadhyay allegedly declared that the election was necessary to safeguard these religious traditions and to protect the honour of “Sanatani Bengali women.”

CJP argues that such statements transformed the election from a contest over governance into what it describes as a religious mobilisation campaign directed at Hindu voters.

References to “Jihadis” and “Love Jihad”

A central aspect of the complaint concerns statements allegedly made by Chattopadhyay regarding “jihadis” and “Love Jihad.”

According to CJP, Chattopadhyay claimed that if the BJP did not come to power, “jihadis” would attack the Tulsi Mancha and Maa Kali would be placed in a prison van. The complaint also refers to statements concerning “Love Jihad,” which it characterises as an anti-Muslim conspiracy theory employed to create fear and hostility toward the minority community.

The organisation contends that these statements presented Muslims as existential threats to Hindu religious practices, women, and sacred spaces. According to the complaint, such rhetoric was intended to generate insecurity and resentment among voters and to encourage political support on explicitly religious grounds.

CJP argues that references to attacks on shrines, threats to deities, and dangers allegedly posed by “jihadis” served no legitimate electoral purpose and instead functioned as deliberate provocations designed to heighten communal tensions.

Electoral and constitutional concerns

The complaint states that Chattopadhyay’s speech repeatedly connected electoral success with the protection of religious symbols and practices. According to CJP, this transformed religious identity into a determining factor in electoral decision-making and thereby violated the principle that elections in a secular republic must remain free from religious appeals.

The organisation further alleges that the speech portrayed minorities as hostile actors while presenting the BJP as the sole defender of Hindu culture and safety. Such framing, according to the complaint, creates a climate of fear and exclusion that is incompatible with constitutional guarantees of equality and equal citizenship.

The complaint also contends that repeated references to “Love Jihad” and attacks on sacred sites created an atmosphere conducive to communal hostility and social unrest.

Legal provisions invoked

As in the complaint against Majumdar, CJP alleges violations of the Model Code of Conduct as well as Sections 123(2), 123(3), 123(3A), and 125 of the Representation of the People Act.

The organisation argues that the speech constituted an appeal to vote on religious grounds, promoted enmity between communities, and amounted to undue influence over voters through fear-based narratives.

CJP additionally invokes Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 352, and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, alleging that the speech promoted hostility between groups, attacked constitutional values, insulted a religious community, and was likely to provoke public disorder.

The complaint relies on the same line of Supreme Court jurisprudence cited in the complaint against Majumdar, arguing that religious appeals during elections and speech targeting religious communities undermine democratic principles and constitutional values.

Common themes across both complaints

A striking feature of both complaints is CJP’s argument that the speeches were not isolated political remarks but formed part of a broader pattern of electoral mobilisation through religious polarisation.

In both cases, the organisation alleges that Muslim communities were portrayed as threats to Hindu culture, religious practices, and public life. Both complaints assert that references to demographic realities, religious symbols, festivals, and communal narratives were used to create divisions between communities and influence voter behaviour.

CJP further argues that both speeches were delivered during an active election period when the Model Code of Conduct was in force and therefore carried heightened implications for the integrity of the electoral process.

The entire complaint may be read here:

Reliefs sought by CJP

In both complaints, CJP has requested election authorities and police officials to initiate immediate action against the individuals concerned.

CJP has sought issuance of show-cause notices for alleged violations of the Model Code of Conduct, registration of FIRs under provisions of the Representation of the People Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and action against event organisers.

It has also requested that the individuals concerned be censured and barred from further election campaigning, that dissemination of the speeches be restricted, and that authorities disclose whether the events were videographed in accordance with Supreme Court directions relating to hate speech monitoring.

Related

Three Inflammatory Speeches, within two months prompt CJP to file complaint with Minority Commission and seek intervention

CJP files 5 hate speech complaints before CEO Maharashtra as violated MCC

CJP files 3 MCC violation complaints with CEO Maharashtra against Suresh Chavhanke for hate speech

The post CJP flags ‘communal polarisation campaign’ in Bengal polls, seeks action against BJP leaders over election speeches appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In its final judgement, the Court held that hate speech is “fundamentally antithetical” to Constitutional values of fraternity. It also found hate speech at odds with the ethos of Indian civilisation that are best captured by the maxim “vasudhaiva kutumbakam”. While the Court pronounced these notions splendiferously in the obiter, the operative part of the judgement remained minimal when it came to reliefs sought by the petitioners. Speech delivered by persons in positions of high political influence was also high in vitriol and the discrimination and harm test. As a result of the judgement dated April 26, BJP politicians and ministers Anurag Thakur and Kapil Mishra remain judicially uncensored for their inciteful conduct as have other protagonists who have contributed to a fragile social climate where, religious minorities most especially live in constant fear of harm, attack and acts of overt discrimination.

This piece analyses how and where the Supreme Court limited itself in this case. Before doing so, we examine hate speech itself. We contextualize how the efforts towards making a breakthrough in jurisprudence in understanding and tackling speech that causes harm (hate speech) –including the 267^th Law Commission Report—have been qualitatively diffused by this final verdict of the Supreme Court.

What is Hate Speech?

Hate speech is any speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, or any other characteristic. It can be subtle or overt, and can have a profound impact on the targets of the speech. Primarily hate speech reduces the social standing of a particular group in the society. Hate speech can lead to stigmatisation, societal discrimination, physical and other kinds of harassment, and violence, including gendered violence where women and children are vulnerable. Hate speech creates a climate of intimidation, fear and division in society.

As per Jeremy Waldron, hate speech damages two related qualities. Firstly, he argues that it affects inclusivity. In pluralist democracies, we observe a milieu of different identities living together forming a heterogeneous social fabric. In such social fabrics, inclusiveness entails an assurance to each person that they can lead a regular life in the polity without facing “hostility, violence, discrimination or exclusion by others.” Secondly, he contends that dignity is damaged by hate speech too. Dignity as defined by him is one’s “basic [and equal] social standing… as a proper object of society’s protection and concern”. Hate speech—as we defined earlier—pierces through the heart of these values. Hate speech, ontologically, is a type of speech that aggressively shows groups as “others” by belittling them. At this juncture, it is important to note that speech, at least on some level, is constitutive of social reality. The existence of certain forms of expression makes a noticeable difference to the environment in which we live our lives. In an environment that is marred with hate speech the message of ‘exclusion’ and ‘hostility’ becomes part of the very look of that environment (becomes an intrinsic feature of that society), and thus breaks down the assurance of inclusiveness and damages dignity of groups.

Issues that have dogged the Courts, given the high decibel hate speech that India has been witnessing are evident in several judgements, analysed by the 267^th Law Commission Report (Chairman was Justice B.S. Chauhan). This report is itself worth a reference read as it analyses evolving hate speech jurisprudence the world over. We recommend that you read this report that is available here. Submitted by the Law Commission to the Ministry of Law and Justice on March 23, 2017, this critical document was made available to the public only on August 16, 2022.

Infact it was the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. UOI, 2014 that led to the 267^th Law Commission Report on Hate Speech in the first place.

Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. UOI

This was the first case of recent times that made some breakthrough in outlining the harm and discriminatory components that qualify hate speech. In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court was called to adjudicate, on merits, a PIL requesting it to frame guidelines prohibiting political hate speech. The court owing to the doctrine of Separation of powers, delegated this task to the Law Commission of India. However, while deferring the case the Court made certain observations that laid down the legal framework for hate speech laws vis-à-vis free speech. The Court then went on to hold that

“Hate speech is an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership in a group. Using expression that exposes the group to hatred, hate speech seeks to delegitimise group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society. Hate speech, therefore, rises beyond causing distress to individual group members. It can have a societal impact. Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide. Hate speech also impacts a protected group’s ability to respond to the substantive ideas under debate, thereby placing a serious barrier to their full participation in our democracy.”

(Paragraph 7)

By putting “marginalisation and delegitmis [ation]” as the fulcrum of determining hate speech, the Court effectively, held dignity and equality to be the grundnorm that speech must respect. It further clarified that hate speech is not directed towards individuals, or rather, is not about personal offence. It is as a matter of fact, an offence against a people. The Court goes on to adopt a consequentialist approach and lays down that hate speech has “societal impact” that could lead to violence. Hence, it establishes a causal link between speech and its (violent) reactions. Lastly, the Court says that hate speech is anathema to democracy.

This judgment lays the stepping stone for the “Proactive approach” that Supreme Court adopts in dealing with hate speech for the next few years.

This report by CJP, that may be read here, calls for a re-look at the provisions on hate speech, calling for a definition that takes into account recent jurisprudence and moves away from the colonial construct in Indian penal laws

Amish Devgan v. UOI

Another judgement, both recent and relevant, is the 2020 Amish Devgan v Union of India. Here, the Supreme Court was called upon to quash FIR filed against TV journalist Amish Devgan who had allegedly made derogatory remarks against an Islamic saint. The Court denied the relief. However, while refusing to quash the FIR the Court gave further directions on how to classify hate speech;

“The ‘context’, as indicated above, has a certain key variable, namely, ‘who’ and ‘what’ is involved and ‘where’ and the ‘occasion, time and under what circumstances’ the case arises. The ‘who’ is always plural for it encompasses the speaker who utters the statement that constitutes ‘hate speech’ and also the audience to whom the statement is addressed which includes both the target and the others. Variable context review recognises that all speeches are not alike. This is not only because of group affiliations, but in the context of dominant group hate speech against a vulnerable and discriminated group, and also the impact of hate speech depends on the person who has uttered the words. The variable recognises that a speech by ‘a person of influence’ such as a top government or executive functionary, opposition leader, political or social leader of following, or a credible anchor on a T.V. show carries a far more credibility and impact than a statement made by a common person on the street.” …

(Para 51)

“Further, certain categories of speakers may be granted a degree of latitude in terms of the State response to their speech. Communities with a history of deprivation, oppression, and persecution may sometimes speak in relation to their lived experiences, resulting in the words and tone being harsher and more critical than usual. Their historical experience often comes to be accepted by the society as the rule, resulting in their words losing the gravity that they otherwise deserve. In such a situation, it is likely for persons from these communities to reject the tenet of civility, as polemical speech and symbols that capture the emotional loading can play a strong role in mobilising. Such speech should be viewed not from the position of a person of privilege or a community without such a historical experience, but rather, the courts should be more circumspect when penalising such speech.”

(Para 51)

While seemingly obvious, the Court in this case gives a crucial direction about contextualisation when deciding on hate speech. The Court recognises two realities. Freedom of expression as a facilitator in a diverse and plural society, critical to equality and free thought within a democracy. However, just like a regular marketplace, the marketplace of ideas is also rife with inequalities. These inequalities include limitations in access, opportunity and socio-cultural status: persons with executive/political influence, journalists, and public figures command a much wider reach and audience. Hence, when such public figure spew hate speech, the impact is significantly higher, ergo they should be more cautious. Second, the Court humanises the speaker and the audience. In most cases, the social standing of the speaker and the audience is different; certain communities have a historic disadvantage while others hold a dominant position in society even today. Subsequently, the Court gave a wider margin of speech to the marginalised communities owing to their lived realities and historic experiences; it further conceded that hate speech made by dominant group against vulnerable groups has a significantly more impact.

While recognising these realities, the Court did its job in tailoring a hate speech jurisprudence that is suitable with the Indian social structure blemished with caste, religious differences and patriarchy. These two previous judgements laid the foundation for a proactive approach against hate speech. They will continue to guide future legal interventions.

Coming back to the 267^th Law Commission that remains a crucial and seminal document for anyone who wishes to engage with hate speech. After a close and thorough examination of the Constituent Assembly debates, Indian constitutional courts jurisprudence and International law (a crucial reference), the Law Commission recommends that measures which limit or restrain freedom of speech and expression, may/can do so when the “three-part test” is justified [(UN HRC, “General Comment 34” One Hundred and Second Session July 11-29, 2011 (July 21, 2011)]:

i) Measure/s must be prescribed by law;

ii) Measure must satisfy legitimate aims;

iii) Measure must be necessary to achieve its stated aim and must be proportionate to the harm that it attempts to prevent or redress. The standard of proportionality in this context has also been understood to include a requirement for minimum impairment of the right being restricted, i.e., the restriction must not do any more damage to the right than is absolutely necessary to meet its aim. [Necessity and proportionality]

Finally, the 267^th Law Commission Report makes relevant and sharp recommendations. Concluding that the Supreme Court, in the case of Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 1591, observed that the issue of hate speech deserved deeper consideration by the Law Commission of India. Quoting the Court, the Law Commission stated that “…we request the Law Commission to also examine the issues raised herein thoroughly and also to consider, if it deems proper, defining the expression “hate speech” and make recommendations to the Parliament to strengthen the Election Commission to curb the menace of “hate speeches” irrespective of whenever made”.

The Law Commission quoting the Supreme Court referred to its consistent clarifications that directions are issued only when there appears to be a total vacuum in law, i.e. “complete absence of active law to provide for the effective enforcement of basic human rights”. In case there is inaction on the part of the executive for whatsoever reason, the court has always stepped in to discharge its constitutional obligation to enforce the law. The Court further observed “in case of vacuum of legal regime, to deal with a particular situation, the court may issue guidelines to provide a solution till such time as the legislature acts to perform its role by enacting proper legislation to cover the field.”

Given the above observations and directives of the Supreme Court in the Pravasi Bhalai Case, “the Commission considered the laws on hate speech in various jurisdictions, judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the High Courts and analysed the existing provisions relevant to the subject matter. “Consequently, the Commission made concrete suggestions.

“The Law Commission suggests amendments to the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by adding new provisions on ‘Prohibiting incitement to hatred’ following section 153B IPC and ‘Causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases’ following section 505 IPC, and accordingly amending the First Schedule of the CrPC.”

These suggestions have been put together in the form of the Commission’s Report No. 267 title “Hate Speech”, which was submitted for consideration by the Government in March 2017.

What did the Union Government do, however?

The present government, in its first term in 2017, is currently in its third. While the Law Commission found, previous sections in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) –Section 153a, 153b, 153c and 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) wholly inadequate in identifying and prosecuting the growing corrosive phenomenon of hate speech and recommended legislative additions through amendments. The newly implemented Criminal Laws, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 broke no new ground and completely bypassed or ignored both the Supreme Court and Law Commission.

In fact, the new criminal laws, that were hurriedly rushed through Parliament while 146 Members of Parliament were suspended, with no amendments being discussed not entertained –and no referrals to a Joint Select Committee as is the norm. Infact the new criminal laws had been evolved in a secretive fashion by a “Committee” consisting of former Vice Chancellor, National Law University, Delhi (NLUD), Professor Srikrishna Deva Rao, present VC, NLUD, GS Bajpeyi and advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, Rajsya Sabha member, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). That such a committee also ignored Supreme Court judgements with clear-cut directions on sections in our law for prosecuting hate speech, as also the Law Commission’s 267th Report is the moot point.

Read this CJP’s Report on Comparisons between the IPC/CRPC and BNSS here. The new criminal laws dealing with the subject matter are simply not sufficient to cope with the menace of ‘Hate Speeches’. Hate/derogatory/inflammatory speech has not been defined in the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and neither in any other penal law. An opportunity to amend our laws to the betterment of a diverse society has been lost.

It is in this context, and failure by the executive, again, that the journey of the present litigation, interim orders and then the final judgement dated April 26, 2026 needs to be understood and read.

In the Interim: Several Preventive Orders to Curb Hate Speech

The backdrop to multiple Interim Orders lies in petitions filed before the Supreme Court arising from the Haridwar Dharam Sansad of December 2021, at which Hindu religious leaders made genocidal calls against Muslims. These petitions, filed by journalist Qurban Ali, former Patna High Court Judge Anjana Prakash, activist Tushar Gandhi, and advocates Firoz Iqbal Khan and Harpreet Mansukhani Saigal, were clubbed together and heard by a bench of former Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice B.V. Nagarathna (Tushar Gandhi vs. Rakesh Asthana).

In September 2022, a bench comprising of J K.M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy (in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. UOI) expressed serious concern at unregulated television news channels and directed the Union of India to state on affidavit whether it intended to legislate against hate speech in line with the Law Commission’s 267th Report.

Shaheen Abdullah and Suo Moto FIRs: In October 2022, the same bench (J K.M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy) in Shaheen Abdullah vs. UOI passed a watershed order in these clubbed matters directing the Governments of Delhi, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh to take suo-moto action against any hate speech crime without waiting for a complaint, warning that failure to act would be contempt of court. The order may be found here.

In January 2023, in the Tushar Gandhi contempt petition, a bench of CJI Chandrachud and Justice Narasimha pulled up the Delhi Police for taking five months to register an FIR against Sudarshan News editor Suresh Chavhanke, who had administered a violent oath to make India a Hindu Rashtra, in violation of the earlier Tehseen Poonawalla directions. The Order can be found here.

On February 3, 2023, the bench of former Justice Joseph and Justice Pardiwala passed preventive orders in the Shaheen Abdullah matter. Hearing a plea against a proposed Sakal Hindu Samaj rally in Maharashtra, the Court recorded the state government’s undertaking that the meeting would only be permitted if no hate speech was made, directed the police to invoke Section 151 CrPC for preventive arrests if necessary, and ordered that the event be video-recorded. In a visible on-ground effect of this order, the Uttarakhand government refused permission to a Dharam Sansad in Roorkee. This order may be found here.

On April 28, 2023, in the matter of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India, the Court extended this suo moto FIR obligation from Delhi, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh to all States and Union Territories. The order for such extension may be found here.

On August 2, 2023, a special hearing was convened in the Shaheen Abdullah matter following anti-Muslim violence in the Nuh district of Haryana triggered by a Bajrang Dal and VHP procession. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti directed the Delhi Police and the governments of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana to ensure no untoward incident took place at upcoming VHP rallies and to video-record events in sensitive areas. This order may be found here.

Moving towards “practical and effective” steps to curb hate speech

On August 25, 2023, the same bench (Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti) in the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Matter urged “practical and effective” steps to implement earlier directions and sought compliance reports from States on the Tehseen Poonawalla Judgement (2018) requirement to designate a Superintendent of Police-rank nodal officer in each district. This order can be found here.

Responding to this, in November 2023 the Ministry of Home Affairs filed an affidavit confirming that 28 States and Union Territories had appointed such nodal officers. An order of November 29 then directed nodal counsel to prepare a consolidated chart of all pending petitions and their prayers. This order may be found here.

In January 2024, a freshly constituted bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta directed the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police in Yavatmal (Maharashtra) and Raipur (Chhattisgarh) to take appropriate steps to prevent hate speech at upcoming rallies of the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti and BJP MLA T. Raja Singh. This order may be found here.

Throughout all these orders, while the Court consistently refused to grant pre-emptive gag orders on rallies, it simultaneously imposed obligations on the State to take effective measures. This is the proactive approach in its fullest expression, not the silencing of the speaker, but the activation of the State as a guarantor of inclusive public space.

Detailed report on previous Supreme Court’s orders in this case may be found here and here.

The Gavel Falls: 2026 Judgement in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India

Facts:

The 2026 judgement of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India saw a sharp departure from this proactive approach. The judgement delivered clubbed all the above-mentioned petitions in its scope and adjudication.

To better understand this departure let us look at the facts of the case, and what the Court was called to adjudicate on. The petitioners, from various parts of the country, filed 13 writ petitions seeking a range of reliefs. These included directions to the Centre to implement the Law Commission’s 267th Report, directions to stop the dissemination of fake news and communally biased media content, directions to lodge criminal cases against persons committing violence against minorities, and issuance of a continuing mandamus to ensure registration of FIRs in hate speech cases. Some petitions pertained to specific incidents, such various alleged hate speeches made by public figures across different States including “desh…….” by Anurag Thakur.

In addition to the writ petitions, several contempt petitions were also filed. These alleged violation of the Court’s interim orders (as noted above) dated October 21, 2022 and April 28, 2023, both of which had directed authorities to take suo moto action against hate speech without waiting for a formal complaint.

This reveals that Indian citizens have always been on the forefront of combatting hate speech. From filing cases seeking specific reliefs that prevent hate speech to calling Court to formulate hate speech guidelines. Indian citizenry has consistently voiced its concern over legitimisation of escalating hate speech and strongly condemned it. However, in this case it was the Court that showed a marked reluctance in taking the requisite action against hate speech.

Decision:

The Court held that there exists no legislative vacuum and the pre-existing penal framework is sufficient to address hate speech. Further, it stated that no contempt proceedings could be initiated against the police for not taking suo moto actions, as it would be an overbroad interpretation of the Order that mandated such suo moto actions. Lastly, the Court dismissed filing of an FIR against the two accused citing that “no cognizable offence” can be made out.

Analysis of the Findings by the Court

On the question of legislative vacuum and need for hate speech laws

Herein, firstly, the Court had to decide whether there exists a legislative vacuum with respect to hate speech law that could prompt the Court to order guidelines or ask the government to bring in specific laws combatting hate speech. The Court declined the plea and held that Indian Criminal law has sufficient laws dealing with hate speech and therefore, no legislative vacuum exists that could prompt the Court to take any action. The Court makes no referral or mention of the developments in its own court (Pravasi Bhalai..) that led to the 267^th Report of the Law Commission and its detailed findings and recommendations. By passing this jurisprudence, the Court has done little justice to a corrosive phenomenon that is negatively impacting the equality and dignity of millions of marginalised Indians.

In Para 37, the Court held that “several provisions which penalise acts that promote enmity between different groups, outrage religious sentiments, or disturb public tranquillity [exist]”, later the Court goes on to list the provisions of the IPC that cover the previously mentioned. Now, with respect, this is where the Court’s understanding of hate speech is lacking. Hate speech is not necessarily the same as “outraging religious sentiments” or “disturbing public tranquillity”; these are separate offences that have separate requirements. The Court here has conflated these offences with hate speech, and owing to the confusion, held that there exists no legislative vacuum.

The Court mentions Section 124A, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code to be covering hate speech.

Section 124A criminalises sedition. Sedition is a fundamentally different act as compared to hate speech, the former deals with inciting violence against the country while the latter is about lowering dignity of a people. Sedition laws clearly have nothing to do with hate speech (as also highlighted by the Law commission’s report on hate speech in paragraphs 6.19 & 6.20).

Further, Section 153 and 505 disallows promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious or racial or language or regional groups or castes and communities and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. While prima facie it seems to prohibit hate speech, the judicial interpretation of these provisions show a different picture. Moreover, to repeat the aspect of impact and intent in causing harm and denial of equal rights and dignity –aspects dealt with at length in Pravasi Bhalai and subsequently the 267^th Law Commission Report, have been left un-mentioned in this verdict.

On the question of Contempt Proceedings against Authorities

Secondly, the Court was called to decide whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the Police in pursuance to its own order dated April 28, 2023. As per the Order the police was expected to file a suo moto complaint against hate speech whenever an instance comes across them. Any failure or hesitation on the part of the authorities in complying with the previously mentioned directions would be viewed seriously and may attract proceedings for contempt of Court. In pursuance of this Order, several petitioners asked for the contempt proceedings to be started against the responsible authorities. However, the Court denied the plea and held,

“The element of “hesitation” or failure to act despite knowledge of a cognizable offence is a sine qua non for invoking the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. In cases where the petitioner has not even approached the authorities or placed the relevant material before them, it would be wholly inappropriate to infer disobedience or “hesitation” on the part of the authorities. In the absence of such foundational facts, the contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked.”

(Paragraphs 159 & 160)

The Court therefore held that in the absence of material placed before the authorities, it can be assumed that the authorities had no knowledge, and therefore, it could not be said that they were hesitant in starting proceedings against the accused. This reluctance or failure to hold police authorities responsible for such egregious conduct (hate speech) can only add to the prevalent climate of impunity. Previous and several Orders by the Supreme Court, it is mandated for police to “monitor” and “videotape” speeches in sensitive areas where there is a likelihood of utterance of hate speech. Now, in the final judgement, the Court’s failure to initiate action on the police authorties’ failure or reluctance to act, the Court permits inaction on such crimes committed. In doing so, it failed to take into account its own Orders that mandated monitoring of rallies and speeches by the police. The authorities now can, refuse to monitor the rallies where hate speech is made and claim immunity from contempt proceedings that arise out of their inaction by simply pleading ignorance. In essence, it appears that the Court made non-compliance with its previous order (monitoring) as a defence to contempt proceedings in instances of no suo moto action being taken!

On the question of appeal of Delhi High Court’s Order [“no cognizable offence made out”]:

The Supreme Court was also required to check the correctness of the Delhi High Court order that dismissed the Writ petition pleading the High Court to file FIR against Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Varma. Before we analyse the Supreme Court’s response to the appeal, it is pertinent to first look at the High Court’s order.

Owing to the bar on prosecution of public servants under Section 197 of the CrPC (that is without sanction granted by the executive), the magistrate refused to file an FIR against Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma as there was no “prior sanction” to prosecute the public servant as required in Section 197. The writ in the High Court dealt exclusively dealt with this question of jurisdiction, i.e., “the only question for consideration before this Court is limited to the extent of adjudicating whether the [Magistrate] has rightly dismissed the complaint [owing to lack of sanction]” The High Court, congruent to the Trial Court, did not delve into the merits of the complaint. Hence, neither the Trial Court nor the High Court adjudged whether the contents of the speech itself made by the accused constituted the crime of hate speech. The High Court on the question of jurisdiction sided with the Trial Court’s finding and held that no FIR could be filed wanting sanction. It is in this backdrop, that the Supreme Court’s was required to examine the speeches themselves

The Supreme Court in this appeal, did, overrule the High Court’s finding on the question of jurisdiction. The High Court had incorrectly concluded that government sanction needed to be obtained before a Magistrate could direct the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC.

The Supreme Court clarified that this requirement of prior sanction only kicks in at the later stage of a court taking cognizance of an offence; it has no application at the earlier stage of simply setting the criminal justice process in motion through FIR registration.

Later, however, in Paragraphs 136-138 of the Supreme Court judgement when the Court starts to assess the merits of the complaint, we find several evasions. The Court held that “the High Court has, on an independent assessment, held that the speeches in question do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, observing that the statements were not directed against any specific community nor did they incite violence or public disorder” (Paragraph 136). This is, with respect, factually incorrect. The High Court had not taken any independent assessment of the speech, it merely dealt with the jurisdictional (procedural) aspect of the complaint and had not paid any heed to the content of the speech. In the following paragraph,

“Upon a careful consideration of the material placed on record, including the alleged speeches, the status report dated February 26, 2020 submitted before the Trial Court, and the reasons recorded by the courts below, we are in agreement with the conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out.”

(Para 137 of the Supreme Order).

The Court again, with respect, is mistaken in these considerations. At the cost of repetition, neither the Trial Court nor the High Court had held that “no cognizable offence is made out” while adjudicating on the content of the speech. Both Courts had merely limited themselves to the question of jurisdiction. In any case, merely agreeing with the Order of the lower Courts without giving any reasoning violates the principles of natural justice. Fundamental natural justice principles require that the Court provides some (not necessarily lengthy) reasoning for agreeing with the lower Court’s decisions. However, in this instance, the Supreme Court has overturned the legal basis of the High Court’ Order yet, without providing any reason, agreed with the outcome.

While arriving at its conclusions, the Court stated,

 “Accordingly, while we disapprove the reasoning adopted by the High Court on the issue of prior sanction, we find no ground to interfere with the ultimate conclusion” (Paragraph 138).

The reason previous Courts had held that no FIR could be filed against the accused is only on grounds of the lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction was proper, and the police could file an FIR against the accused without the sanction. The natural course of action here would then have been delving into the merits of the complaints or ordering the Magistrate to delve into the merits of the complaints. The Supreme Court however does neither. It absolves itself of providing any reasons for its decision by simply holding that “[there] are no grounds to interfere”.

The Court here, in effect, gives a clean chit to the accused without any application of judicial mind to the actual content of the speech, which makes out an alleged offence. At no level of judiciary was there an application of judicial mind to the content of the impugned speech. Despite that, the accused have got “a clean chit.”

Keeping in mind that the Court did not delve into content of the impugned speech, it is important for us to independently examine the speech by the two main accused can, at all, be classified as hate speech.

I. Anurag Thakur

Location: Delhi

Date: January 27, 2020

Link: <https://www.groundxero.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Delhi_riots_Fact_Finding_2020_compressed.pdf>

 “These [Protestors at Shaheen Bagh] are Traitors to our Country, Shoot them”

Anurag Thakur, a prominent member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in his infamous speech had called for killing of the supposed “traitors” of the Country. Before we delve into the call for outright physical violence, it is pertinent to decode the euphuisms used, as context is very important in determining hate speech as held by the Amish Devgan judgment. The backdrop of the speech was the protestors at Shaheen bagh who were peacefully protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. It is very evident from the context of the speech that the traitors referred to in the speech are these protestors, none else.

Most of the people who were involved in these protests at Shaheen Bagh were Muslims. Anurag Thakur deliberately invokes the slur, calls Shaheen Bagh protestors as “traitors” of the Nation and several times ask the crowd to echo his call for violence, making a clearly inciteful speech. By calling for violence against these protestors in a charged environment (that are largely Muslims demographically), Thakur indirectly calls for violence against Muslims at large.

Moreover, Thakur was a Union Minister of State when he uttered these statements. Therefore, his statements had the potential to have far-reaching consequences owing to both the reach and influence that politicians yield. These are important considerations when classifying hate speech applying the Amish Devgan Judgement.

II. Parvesh Verma

Location: Delhi and ANI News (Cable network through TV)

Date: January 28, 2020 & January 27, 2020

Link: <https://www.groundxero.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Delhi_riots_Fact_Finding_2020_compressed.pdf>

“They will enter into your homes. They will abduct your women and rape and kill them.”

[Via TV on ANI News]

Parvesh Verma uses verbal imagery the protestors at Shaheen Bagh (largely Muslims) to instil fear in the audience. He remarks that these protestors will barge into the Hindu homes, kill, and rape Hindu women. This communally charged sentence aims at fear mongering. This is also intended to create division and disharmony between the two communities.

“If my government is formed in Delhi, then give me only one month’s time. Will not leave any mosque built in my constituency on government land, I will remove them all.”

[Via TV on ANI News]

This statement is ipso facto inflammatory, communal and a threat to Muslims. By calling for destroying all the mosques in Delhi, Varma is intimidating and threatening Muslims of Violence at large. Parvesh Verma is a politician with great reach and influence, this reach is amplified by the fact that his first two impugned statements came via Television, meaning his speech could have been accessed immediately by millions of people. This becomes an important consideration in determining hate speech.

“If the BJP comes to power in Delhi, we will clear Shaheen Bagh of all protestors within 1 hour. Not a single person will be visible.”

This statement does not require much explanation. It is direct threat to violence against the protestors of Shaheen Bagh. These statements carry greater weight as they were uttered by an influential person. He is currently the Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi.

It is these three aspects of the final judgement (a. failing to give any directions on combatting hate speech, b. failing to initiate contempt proceedings c. and giving clean chit to the accused), that we can discern a clear shift in the Court’s approach during the adjudication of these cases, over five years. Interim Orders were proactive, the final judgement status quo-ist. Despite several and specific complaints, the Supreme Court chose not to take any action against hate speech.

The Court missed an important opportunity here to carve out specific directions to combat hate speech, neither did it attempt to fill up the legislative vacuum.

The Law Commission of India in its 267^th Report recognised this legal vacuum and had recommended adding specific sections to strengthen the law(s) dealing with hate speech. Worse, the Court watered down its own previous order that required suo moto actions against instances of hate speech.

By shifting the onus on complainants to file FIRs the Court restored the status quo and negated its own previous directions wherein it had placed the onus squarely on the shoulders of the authorities to prevent and take action against hate speech. Lastly, by giving a clean chit to the particular accused without even an examination into the content to merit of the speeches, the Court has set an undesirable precedent.

In the final judgement, the judges have over dozens of pages warned against dangers of hate speech in a democratic societies, in fact, the judgement had a specific section titled “Epilogue: An ode to ‘Fraternity’ in the Preamble vis- à-vis the idea of ‘vasudhaiva kutumbakam’”.

Yet, by failing to issue specific directions, it has not acted on its own wise words. Finally, this verdict will act not as a check but a possible enabler wherein influential protagonists can get away with their inflammatory speeches. Though the judgement recognises that politicians have a special duty to be mindful of their words owing to the wide reach and influence they have, the Court stops short of ensuring any accountability. The overall impact of this judgement on the hate speech jurisprudence in India is limiting. Instead of listing sharp directives to the executive to act, even directing he legislature to examine the legislative lacuna, the Court has missed an excellent opportunity.

Though India, experiences, on an average,  five instances of hate speech occurring every day, these may well continue without check. In choosing general observations over specific actionable directive, the Supreme Court, also known as the “Court of last resort” has caused an acute disappointment.

The complete judgment of the Supreme Court may be read here:

Interim Orders in these cases from September 2022 to January 2024 may be found here:

The High Court Judgement in the matter may be read here:

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Hamzah Patel)

Related:

India Hate Lab Report 2025: How Hate Speech has been normalised in the public sphere

BNS 2023 does nothing to bring in a nuanced effective understanding of Hate Speech, making its prosecution even more difficult

Supreme Court in 2023: Several steps forward, miles to go in the fight against hate

Hate Speech and the Supreme Court: From constitutional alarm to institutional closure

Hate Speech by BJP’s Top Brass fuelled Build Up to Delhi Violence: Minorities Commission

The post The Supreme Court blinks when it comes to Hate Speech appeared first on SabrangIndia.

CJP stated in the complaints that the alleged hate speeches violated constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15 and 21 and attracted offences under provisions relating to promotion of enmity between groups, criminal intimidation, statements conducing to public mischief, deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings, and incitement to violence.

The complaints concern speeches delivered in Chandivali and Malad Malvani in Mumbai, Kalyani in Nadia district of West Bengal, and Junnar in Pune district.

Complaint against Nitesh Narayan Rane over Chandivali speech: May 12, 2026

In a complaint dated May 12, 2026, addressed to Shri Nikhil Gupta, Additional Director General (Law & Order), Maharashtra, Addl. Commissioner of Police, West Region, Mumbai, and Senior Police Inspector, Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai, CJP sought registration of an FIR against BJP MLA and Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nitesh Narayan Rane for allegedly delivering a divisive communal speech during a Hindu convention held in Chandivali, Mumbai on May 3, 2026.

CJP stated in the complaint that Rane utilised dehumanising language against Muslims, spread conspiracy theories regarding “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” “Corporate Jihad,” and “Ghazwa-e-Hind,” and openly encouraged social and economic boycott of Muslims. The complaint alleged that the speech attempted to create fear and hostility by portraying Muslims as an existential threat to Hindus and India.

According to CJP, Rane repeatedly referred to Muslims as “green snakes” and urged the audience to confront them. The complaint reproduces the speech transcript, including the following statements:

“[They] should come to Maharashtra. This writhing of green snakes (referring to Muslims) must stop. That is why the saffron flag has been unfurled in Maharashtra, remember this.”

“And therefore, while moving around as a Hindu, do so with self-confidence. Move with courage. If any green snake is writhing here, take guidance from Tai and then give me a call.”

The complaint further stated that Rane repeatedly described India as a “Hindu Rashtra” and suggested that Muslims were attempting to convert India into an Islamic nation through organised conspiracies.

CJP also stated in the complaint that Rane attempted to create fear among Hindus by claiming that Muslims would prevent Hindu religious practices if their population increased.

The complaint reproduces the following statements:

“You won’t be able to perform puja in your home. This saffron flag won’t be able to fly here. You won’t be able to apply the Tilak on your forehead.”

“Mothers and sisters won’t be able to apply vermilion (Sindoor) on their heads.”

According to CJP, the speech also included references to alleged communal incidents in Palghar and Virar to reinforce hostility against Muslims. The complaint additionally highlighted Rane’s remarks calling for economic boycott of Muslims:

“So, when we are dealing with them, buying from them, or giving them jobs—first, if someone is sitting at a shop, even if the shop’s signboard says ‘Jay Shri Ram,’ sometimes Abdul is sitting inside.”

“First tell him, ‘Recite the Hanuman Chalisa for me first.’ If you recite the Hanuman Chalisa only then will I buy from you, otherwise I won’t.”

“Therefore, if jobs are to be given or purchases are to be made, it should only be for Hindus—this should be the stance of all of us.”

CJP stated in the complaint that these remarks amounted to explicit encouragement of discrimination and exclusion of citizens based on religion and constituted a direct appeal for economic boycott of Muslims.

A copy of complaint dated May 12, 2026 can be accessed here

Complaint against Nitesh Rane over Malad Malvani speech during Ram Navami Yatra

In another complaint dated April 28, 2026, addressed to Maharashtra Police authorities, CJP sought registration of an FIR against Nitesh Narayan Rane over a speech delivered during the Ram Navami Yatra held in Malad Malvani, Mumbai, on March 26, 2026.

According to CJP, the speech promoted communal hostility, issued direct threats of violence, and attempted to alienate Muslims by declaring India a “Hindu Rashtra” and describing the locality as belonging exclusively to “saffron-clad” Hindus.

CJP stated in the complaint that Rane used references to “Pakistan” as a dog-whistle against Muslims and openly threatened those opposing Hindutva ideology.

The complaint reproduces the following portions of the speech:

“Perhaps some people here in Malvani have forgotten that this is our Hindu Rashtra, this is not someone’s Pakistan. If anyone tries to remove that saffron flag, we will not let their cylinder come up again. If anyone again looks at our saffron flag with dirty eyes, then their eyes will be taken out and played with like marbles.”

CJP alleged that these remarks amounted to open threats of violence and intimidation. The complaint further stated that Rane specifically directed slogans toward a mosque in the locality, thereby attempting to provoke confrontation and disturb communal harmony. The reproduced statement reads:

“That voice must reach the big mosque.”

According to CJP, such statements sought to intimidate the Muslim community and portray them as outsiders within the constitutional framework of India. The complaint also alleged that Rane invoked the authority of a “government with a Hindutva ideology” to suggest political backing for aggressive communal mobilisation.

A copy of complaint dated April 28, 2026 can be accessed here

Complaint against Hari Mishra in West Bengal over hate speech during election campaign in Nadia

In a complaint dated May 6, 2026 addressed to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police in Nadia district, West Bengal, CJP sought registration of an FIR under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, 352 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against BJP leader Hari Mishra for a speech delivered during an election campaign in Kalyani, Nadia district, on April 23, 2026. CJP stated in the complaint that Mishra spread anti-Muslim conspiracy theories and falsely claimed that Hindu festivals could not be celebrated in Muslim-majority areas.

The complaint reproduces portions of the speech including:

“In any area where the Muslim population is above 30-35%, Saraswati Puja will not happen. In places like Malda and Murshidabad… you first have to take permission from the nearest mosque. A situation worse than Bangladesh is going to happen on the soil of West Bengal.”

CJP further alleged that Mishra falsely claimed that the Constitution of India did not function in parts of West Bengal. The reproduced transcript includes:

“The Constitution of India does not work in many parts of Malda and Murshidabad. In about 25-30% of the areas in Malda and Murshidabad, the Constitution, rules, laws, and regulations of India do not apply.”

The complaint also referred to statements linking demographic change with political exclusion: “The day Muslims reach above 40-45%, not a single Hindu MP, MLA, counselor, or chairman will remain in West Bengal.”

According to CJP, these remarks sought to portray Muslims as a threat to democratic institutions and communal coexistence and were intended to create fear and polarisation during the election period.

A copy of complaint dated May 6, 2026 can be accessed here

Complaint against Harshu Thakur in Junnar, Pune over speech delivered at Virat Hindu Sammelan

In a separate complaint dated May 6, 2026, addressed to the Additional Director General (Law & Order), Maharashtra, the Superintendent of Police, Pune Rural, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Junnar Division, CJP sought registration of an FIR against Harshu Thakur over a speech delivered at the Virat Hindu Sammelan held in Junnar, Pune district, on April 19, 2026. CJP stated in the complaint that Thakur spread anti-Muslim rhetoric through references to “Forest Jihad,” “Love Jihad,” and “Land Jihad,” while also making statements encouraging militarised responses and targeting Islamic institutions and burial practices.

The complaint reproduces the following statements:

“Wherever there is open land, there are graves. If you start funding madrasas, then only terrorists will be produced there. Mulla-Maulvis give them training on how to trap girls in ‘Love Jihad’ and how to carry out ‘Land Jihad’. They are taught how to make bombs.”

CJP further highlighted remarks targeting Muslim men and encouraging women to arm themselves:

“All these ‘Abduls’ are the same. Every Hindu woman just needs to be given a weapon.”

The complaint also alleged that Thakur attempted to frame Muslims as inherently violent while encouraging religious segregation and hostility.

A copy of complaint dated May 6, 2026 can be accessed here

Judicial precedents on which CJP relied upon

In the complaints submitted before police authorities in Maharashtra and West Bengal, CJP also relied upon multiple judicial precedents of the Supreme Court concerning hate speech, communal targeting, and the constitutional obligation of authorities to act against inflammatory rhetoric. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Firoz Iqbal Khan vs Union of India [W.P. (Civ.) No. 956 of 2020], CJP highlighted the Court’s observations that “the edifice of a democratic society committed to the rule of law under a regime of constitutional rights, values and duties is founded on the co-existence of communities. India is a melting pot of civilisations, cultures, religions and languages. Any attempt to vilify a religious community must be viewed with grave disfavour by this Court as the custodian of constitutional values.”

CJP stated that the speeches delivered by Nitesh Rane, Hari Mishra, and Harshu Thakur collectively portrayed Muslims as conspirators, outsiders, extremists, and demographic threats, thereby directly undermining constitutional values of equality, fraternity, and peaceful coexistence. The complaints further referred to Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India [AIR 2014 SC 1591], where the Supreme Court observed that “hate speech is an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership to a group,” and warned that such speech can lay the groundwork for discrimination, ostracism, violence, and even genocide. CJP stated that the repeated references to “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” “Forest Jihad,” “Corporate Jihad,” alleged demographic conspiracies, and calls for economic boycott sought to institutionalise fear and hostility against Muslims and therefore warranted immediate criminal action.

The complaints additionally cited the Supreme Court’s order dated April 28, 2023 in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 943 of 2021], wherein all States and Union Territories were directed to register suo moto FIRs against hate speech irrespective of religion whenever offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 505 IPC and related provisions are attracted.

Provisions related to hate speech under BNS, 2023

CJP further stated that the speeches attract multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, particularly Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, 352 and 353. According to the complaints, the repeated targeting of Muslim religious institutions, educational spaces, and social identity through references such as “green snakes,” “Forest Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” and allegations that madrasas produce “only terrorists” amounted to promoting enmity between religious groups and acts prejudicial to communal harmony under Section 196 BNS.

CJP stated that the speeches also made imputations against the constitutional allegiance of an entire community by portraying Muslims and Islamic institutions as threats to the State, thereby attracting Section 197 BNS. The complaints further alleged that mocking Dargahs, Mazars, burial practices, Islamic scholars, and Muslim religious practices constituted deliberate insults to religion and religious beliefs under Sections 299 and 302 BNS.

CJP additionally argued that the repeated calls for mobilisation, warnings regarding demographic change, threats of violence, references to arming civilians, and calls for economic boycott amounted to intentional provocation intended to breach public peace under Section 352 BNS and dissemination of false information likely to create fear and communal unrest under Section 353 BNS.

The complaints maintained that the speeches delivered across Mumbai, Pune, and Nadia reflected a continuing pattern of inflammatory communal rhetoric aimed at deepening religious polarisation and normalising hostility against Muslims, thereby necessitating immediate registration of FIRs and preventive intervention by the concerned police authorities in compliance with constitutional obligations and Supreme Court directives.

Maharashtra DGP circulars cited by CJP

CJP also referred to circulars issued by the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, in February and April 2023 concerning preventive and penal action against hate speech.

According to the complaint, Circular No. DGP 20/Petition No.940/2022/54.2023 dated February 2, 2023 highlighted the Supreme Court’s order dated January 13, 2023 directing police authorities to take suo motu action whenever speeches attract offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 505 IPC.

The circular had directed all Unit Commanders to follow the Supreme Court order and entails “measures to be taken to maintain law and order due to agitations, morchas, speeches etc.”

It gives detailed instructions on what steps are to be taken when any morchas are to be held:

“2. All the Unit Commanders should hold a meeting with the concerned organisers before such a morcha and fix the route of the morcha with appropriate terms and condition. A combined meeting of all social groups should be taken to convey clearly to all that they should maintain peace and keep law and order during the morcha. Preventive action against Anti-social elements should be taken. Those elements who help in maintaining peace and harmony should be encouraged. Audio Video recording of the morcha should be done. Police Head Quarters should ensure adequate supply of equipment’s, like Lathi, Helmets, etc. to police men deployed for morcha bandobast. If any law-and-order situation arises, offences should be registered immediately and arrest should be made. Intelligence machinery should be activated to collect advance information about morcha, agitation and efforts should be made to pre-empt any communal incidents.”

Supreme Court directions on preventing/prosecuting hate speakers

CJP further referred to multiple Supreme Court orders concerning hate speech and preventive policing. According to the complaints, on February 3, 2023, the Supreme Court issued directions regarding a proposed event by Sakal Hindu Samaj in Mumbai and directed that if permission was granted for the event, it would be subject to the condition that no hate speech would be delivered.

The court also outlined directives with respect to taking preventive action in such cases:

“We also direct that the Officer(s), in case, permission is granted and, in case, the occasion arises for invoking the power under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the Officer(s) concerned to invoke the said power and to act as per the mandate of Section 151 of the Cr.P.C.” 

Even in 2024 itself, while on January 17, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta had expressed their anguish at the petitioners being forced to approach the Supreme Court multiple times against individuals and organisations even after there being guidelines for tacking and taking action against hate speeches. During the said hearing, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police at Yavatmal, Maharashtra and Raipur, Chhattisgarh to take ‘appropriate steps’ to ensure that no incitement to hate speech occurs at the rallies scheduled in the said districts in the coming few days of January.

The said order was passed following the concerns raised by the petitioners over delivery of potential hate speeches at rallies planned by Hindu Janjagruti Samiti and Bharatiya Janata Party Legislator T Raja Singh in the month of January.

CJP stated that the court had outlined directives with respect to taking preventive action in such cases:

“We would require the authorities to be conscious that no incitement to violence and hate speech are permissible. The concerned District Magistrates and Superintendent of Police of Yavatmal, Maharashtra and Raipur, Chhattisgarh will take necessary steps, as may be required. If necessary and deemed appropriate, police/administration will install CCTV Cameras having recording facility, so as to ensure identification of the perpetrators in the event of any violence/hate speech.”

Background: Profile of Nitesh Rane and previous complaints filed by CJP

CJP stated in its complaints that the speeches delivered in Chandivali and Malad Malvani were not isolated incidents but formed part of a continuing pattern of inflammatory speeches allegedly delivered by Nitesh Rane across Maharashtra. According to CJP, the organisation had previously filed complaints dated March 7, March 18, and March 28, 2025 concerning speeches delivered by Rane in Sindhudurg, Pune, and Ratnagiri districts.

The complaints related to events including:

• “Hindu Rashtra Adhiveshan” in Kundal on February 8, 2025
• “Shivjanmostav” event in Sawantwadi on February 19, 2025
• Public felicitation programme at Nanijdham, Ratnagiri on February 20, 2025
• Religious gathering in Wagholi, Pune on February 5, 2025

CJP stated that across these events, Rane repeatedly invoked terms such as “Love Jihad” and “Land Jihad,” portrayed Muslims as a collective threat, and made statements capable of inciting hostility, fear, and social boycott against the Muslim community. The complaints further stated that such rhetoric, particularly when delivered by a sitting Cabinet Minister, was inflammatory, unsupported by evidence, and violative of constitutional protections.

FIRs and ongoing legal scrutiny against Nitesh Rane

Under the judicial oversight of the Bombay High Court in Aftab Siddique & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra (2024), multiple FIRs have already been registered against Nitesh Rane in connection with alleged hate speech cases. CJP reproduced details of these FIRs in its complaints and stated that they reflected a continuing pattern of communal speeches delivered by Rane in different parts of Maharashtra.

Mankhurd Police Station (C.R. No. 152/2024)

Registered against Nitesh Rane under Sections 153A, 503, 504 and 505 IPC. According to the complaint, this case originated from speeches perceived as threatening to the Muslim community and capable of inciting public disorder.

Ghatkopar Police Station (C.R. No. 521/2024)

Registered against Nitesh Rane and Subhash Ahir under Sections 153A, 504, 506 and 188 IPC in connection with inflammatory speeches delivered in Mumbai suburbs.

Kashimira Police Station (C.R. No. 259/2024)

Registered against Nitesh Rane and Geeta Jain in relation to the Mira-Bhayander incidents under Sections 153A, 153B, 143, 504 and 506 IPC along with Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

Malwani Police Station (C.R. No. 298/2024)

Originally registered against Bhagwan Thakur, with Nitesh Rane later added as an accused under Sections 153A, 504 and 506 IPC in relation to speeches targeting specific religious communities.

CJP further pointed out that Nitesh Rane’s October 2024 election affidavit reportedly disclosed 38 FIRs registered against him, including 20 cases relating specifically to allegations of hate speech.

Related

Free and Fair Elections: CJP’s 2025 fight against hate and voter intimidation

CJP’s 2025 intervention against ‘Digital Hate’: Holding television news channels accountable before the NBDSA

Law as Resistance: A year of CJP’s interventions against a rising tide of hate

The post CJP files complaint against BJP MLA & Minister Nitesh Rane and right-wing leaders over alleged hate speeches in Maharashtra and West Bengal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Combining detailed regional overviews with independent commentaries by Anjuman Ara Begum and N P Chekutty, along with insights from academics and activists on Puducherry, the report offers a layered account of how dissent, media, and electoral processes intersect in contemporary India. It locates the upcoming elections within a broader pattern of shrinking civic space, contested electoral practices, and increasingly polarised public narratives—raising fundamental concerns about the conditions necessary for free and fair democratic participation.

The report situates the 2026 elections within a larger context: a shrinking space for dissent, increasing use of censorship, and the growing normalisation of hate speech. Across all three regions, it identifies a pattern where free expression is not only challenged through formal legal mechanisms, but also through intimidation, institutional pressure, and political messaging that reshapes public discourse.

It also highlights the controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which has raised concerns about exclusion, transparency, and voter confidence—placing the very foundation of electoral participation under scrutiny.

Assam: Systemic curtailment and the centrality of hate speech

The report’s coverage of Assam is extensive and sharply critical, documenting a sustained pattern of restrictions on free speech alongside the institutionalisation of polarising rhetoric.

It details how journalists and media workers faced criminal cases, arrests, and direct intimidation. A prominent editor was charged with sedition in 2025, while earlier instances included the detention of journalists for reporting on communal violence and the arrest of reporters investigating corruption. Physical attacks and coercion—such as forcing journalists to delete recorded material—further reinforced an environment of fear.

The report also points to more subtle forms of suppression, including the discontinuation of critical columns addressing human rights violations, indicating a climate where self-censorship becomes necessary for survival.

A significant episode cited is the complaint by the CPI(M) alleging that state broadcasters censored portions of its election speech critical of the government, raising concerns about electoral fairness and the misuse of public broadcasting platforms.

At the centre of the report’s Assam analysis is the pervasive use of hate speech. Political rhetoric targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims—particularly the “Miya” community—is described as sustained, deliberate, and electorally mobilising. Statements invoking economic boycotts, branding individuals as “traitors,” and linking communities to national security threats are documented as part of a broader narrative strategy.

The report further highlights the role of technology and disinformation, especially the circulation of AI-generated videos depicting violent and dehumanising imagery aimed at Muslims. These instances are presented as evidence of how digital tools are being deployed to intensify polarisation.

Legal responses, including petitions before courts, are noted—but the report underscores that such interventions have not significantly curbed the continuation of hate speech.

Additionally, it records attacks on media institutions, including the burning of newspaper bundles, and raises concerns about attempts to influence journalists through state-sponsored distributions, such as the gifting of smartphones.

Taken together, the report presents Assam as a case where free speech is constrained both structurally and atmospherically, with fear, lawfare, and polarisation reinforcing each other.

Kerala: Contestation, censorship, and civil society pushback

In contrast, the report’s examination of Kerala presents a more layered and contested environment. It acknowledges that free speech conditions in the state remain comparatively stronger, supported by a vibrant media ecosystem and an active civil society. However, this relative openness coexists with increasing instances of censorship and legal pressure.

The report documents the use of legal mechanisms, including FIRs and defamation case, against journalists, activists, and protestors. It also recounts the ban on a Malayalam news channel by the Union government, later overturned by the Supreme Court, as a key example of institutional censorship.

Cinema emerges as a major site of conflict. The report details:

• Judicial interventions affecting film reviews
• Controversies around propaganda films released in the run-up to elections
• Attempts to block screenings at international film festivals

These developments are framed as indicative of a broader struggle over narrative control in a state where cinema plays a central cultural role.

The report also examines the delayed and redacted release of the Justice Hema Committee report on the film industry, highlighting how even institutional inquiries into gender justice faced forms of informational control.

On the electoral front, it notes the emergence of communal rhetoric—traditionally less dominant in Kerala politics—and the legal challenges that followed, including court scrutiny of campaign speeches. At the same time, the report emphasises the role of public resistance. Civil society interventions, media plurality, and a politically aware citizenry have consistently pushed back against attempts to curb free expression.

However, it also flags emerging concerns: increasing corporate influence over media, declining investigative scrutiny, and growing public dissatisfaction—particularly among younger populations.

Kerala, therefore, is portrayed as a space of ongoing struggle, where democratic safeguards remain active but are under pressure.

Puducherry: Suppression of dissent and structural pressures

The report’s coverage of Puducherry highlights a different but equally significant pattern—where free speech is shaped by administrative control, campus politics, and broader structural inequalities.

A central focus is the curtailment of student expression. The report documents:

• Disciplinary action against students protesting fee hikes
• Disruption and criminalisation of cultural performances
• A controversial university code of conduct that triggered widespread protests

It further records police intervention in student movements, including lathi-charges, detentions, and arrests—underscoring the use of state force in response to dissent.

Journalists in the region also faced violence and intimidation, including physical attacks and verbal abuse during reporting.

Electoral processes come under scrutiny through the report’s discussion of the SIR exercise, which led to significant deletions of voters before partial corrections were made, raising concerns about disenfranchisement.

Beyond censorship, the report situates free speech within a broader political economy. It highlights:

• High levels of youth unemployment
• The dominance of wealthy candidates in elections
• The prevalence of candidates with criminal cases

These factors, it argues, shape the environment in which speech and dissent occur, often limiting meaningful participation in democratic processes.

The report also draws attention to the influence of centralised political power in the Union Territory, suggesting that local democratic autonomy is constrained.

Conclusion: A fragmented but converging crisis

Across Assam, Kerala, and Puducherry, the report does not present a uniform decline—but rather distinct trajectories of constraint.

• In Assam, free speech is undermined by criminalisation, intimidation, and the centrality of hate speech in political discourse.
• In Kerala, it is shaped by institutional pressures and censorship, countered by strong civil society resistance.
• In Puducherry, it is limited through administrative control, suppression of student activism, and structural inequalities.

Yet, despite these differences, the report identifies a common concern: the erosion of the conditions necessary for meaningful democratic participation. Free and fair elections, it argues, depend not only on the act of voting, but on the ability of citizens to speak, question, and dissent without fear. The persistence of censorship, the spread of hate speech, and the controversies surrounding electoral processes together signal a deeper challenge—one that extends beyond any single state or election cycle.

The complete report may be read below:

Related:

AERO dies by suicide in Kolkata, family alleges extreme election duty pressure and humiliation

No Hearing, No Notice, Just Deletion: How Bengal’s SIR Erased a Decorated IAF Officer

Rights group files complaint over electoral roll purges in North 24 Parganas

Alleged Pattern of Denigration: High Court seeks response from Himanta Biswa Sarma on PIL against his alleged hate speeches

The post Censorship and the Drumbeats of Hate: Mapping the state of free speech ahead of the 2026 polls appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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:

Supreme Court asked to intervene as petitions flag “normalisation of hate” in Assam CM’s public speeches

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

CJM who ordered FIR against police for 2024 Sambhal violence case transferred by Allahabad HC, new trend?

The post Alleged Pattern of Denigration: High Court seeks response from Himanta Biswa Sarma on PIL against his alleged hate speeches appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Through a series of strategic legal interventions, CJP has challenged the normalisation of “state-sponsored demonisation” and the blatant misuse of administrative authority. By filing rigorous complaints with the Election Commission of India and State authorities, CJP has sought to remind those in power that welfare is a right, not a partisan incentive, and that the pulpit of a campaign rally is subject to the rule of law. Our 2025 interventions highlight a commitment to ensuring that the focus of Indian democracy remains on governance, equality, and the dignity of every citizen, regardless of their faith or political affiliation. This 2025 report details our key actions against hate offenders and the corruptive influence of communal propaganda in the democratic process.

1. Combating communal polarisation in the Delhi Assembly Elections, 2025

Complaint against Habitual Hate Offender Nazia Elahi Khan

On January 20, 2025, CJP filed a formal complaint with Delhi’s Chief Electoral Officer, R. Alice Vaz, against BJP leader and hate offender Nazia Elahi Khan for an inflammatory speech delivered in Rohini, Delih. The complaint detailed how she targeted the Muslim community with dehumanising stereotypes, falsely associating and targeting the community with inherent violence, terrorism, and “love jihad.” CJP argued that these baseless generalisations, including derogatory remarks about the Koran, were a calculated attempt to polarise voters along religious lines and disrupt communal harmony during the critical pre-election period.

The speech was flagged as a severe violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and the Representation of the People Act, 1951, specifically Sections 123(2), 123(3), and 123(3A), which prohibit using religious appeals to influence voters. CJP emphasised that such rhetoric shifts the focus from governance and policy to divisive identity politics, creating an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. By calling for a public censure and a ban on Khan’s future campaigning, CJP sought to protect the integrity of the democratic process and ensure that the Delhi elections remained focused on developmental issues rather than communal anxieties.

CJP seeks action against BJP Councillor for communal campaigning

Similarly, on January 10, 2025, CJP also filed a complaint with the Chief Electoral Officer of Delhi against BJP Councillor Ravinder Singh Negi for an inflammatory speech delivered during a January 6 election event in Patparganj. The complaint outlines that Negi utilised divisive communal narrative for electoral gain, referring to Muslims as “descendants of the Mughals” and asserting that only “Jai Shree Ram” would dominate India. CJP argued that these remarks were a deliberate attempt to communalise the election process, painting the Hindu community as victims in need of protection from an alleged Muslim threat.

The complaint highlights that Negi’s speech stigmatises Muslims by linking them to past rulers and spreads fear regarding population growth, specifically citing West Bengal. By invoking the Kashmiri Pandit exodus and events in Bangladesh, the speech exploited communal sentiments to stoke fear rather than addressing policy issues.

CJP emphasised that such language violates Sections 123(2), 123(3), and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibit undue influence and religious appeals. Furthermore, CJP noted that this discourse aggravates communal tensions and breaches the Model Code of Conduct, challenging the democratic integrity of the Delhi elections.

2. Intervening in the Bihar Assembly Elections 2025: combatting “Hate, Fear, and Violence”

• Complaint against Ashok Kumar Yadav: ridicule and coercive loyalty

CJP on October 30, 2025, approached the CEO Bihar against hate speech in Darbhanga on October 16, 2025, where Madhubani MP Ashok Kumar Yadav addressed “Muslim brothers,” instructing them to say “tauba tauba” and renounce government benefits like free grain and gas cylinders. CJP’s complaint describes the speech as “mocking religious practice and publicly demanding a ritual renunciation of entitlements,” amounting to psychological coercion. By equating welfare use with political loyalty and faith with betrayal, Yadav’s speech redefined citizenship as conditional, fusing spiritual vocabulary with partisan mobilisation.

CJP argues that mocking religious language and demanding a ritual renunciation of state-built roads and bridges constitutes “undue influence.” This bombast moves from ridicule to coercion, framing welfare schemes not as rights but as favours to be repaid through political allegiance. Those who refuse are branded as “ungrateful,” turning a phrase of repentance into a performative punishment. The legal core remains clear: these are prima facie offences that weaken the constitutional promise of free and fair elections, where what begins as a jest ends as an exclusionary policy.

• Complaint against Giriraj Singh: public loyalty tests and humiliation

CJP on October 29, 2025, approached the CEO Bihar regarding Union Minister Giriraj Singh’s speeches in Arwal and Begusarai on October 18 and 19, 2025, transformed gratitude for welfare into a religious oath of political loyalty. In Arwal, he asked a “Maulvi” to swear “on Khuda” to acknowledge benefits received under the government, declaring, “I don’t need votes from namakharam people.”

In Begusarai, Giriraj Singh manipulated the word “haram” into a slur, questioning the faith and morality of Muslims who did not vote for the BJP. The complaint describes these statements as “coercive and communal,” violating the Model Code of Conduct’s (MCC) ban on religious appeals. CJP sought immediate action, including FIR registration under the BNS for promoting enmity, framing the language as “a public loyalty test administered through humiliation.”

CJP stated in its complaint that these speeches fall within the definition of “corrupt practice” under Section 123(2) of the RPA. By identifying an internal enemy and demanding a religious oath for political support. The strategy reinforces a hierarchy where welfare schemes—rations, gas cylinders, and Ayushman cards—are presented as debts owed to the ruling party. This sequence demonstrates how easily populist politics collapses faith into allegiance and citizenship into a privilege contingent on identity.

• Complaint against Nityanand Rai: xenophobia and state-sanctioned exclusion

CJP also filed a complaint the local authorities of the Election Commission of India (ECI) on October 30, 2025, that stated that on October 22, 2025, in Hayaghat, Union Minister Nityanand Rai pivoted from religious invocations to overt nationalism and xenophobia, targeting those wearing “reshmi salwar and topi (mode of dress and skull cap).” He claimed that “Bangladeshi and Rohingya infiltrators” were taking away the livelihoods of Bihar’s youth and insisted they must be excluded from voter lists.

The complaint noted the gravity of a Home Ministry official using xenophobic tropes, arguing such speech carries “the force of state policy” when uttered by a minister responsible for internal security. Rai’s rhetoric blends three distinct offences: an appeal to religion, the vilification of a religious group, and the use of ministerial office to threaten administrative exclusion. This prepared the ground for Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s speech in Siwan, which explicitly promised to “identify and expel each and every individual ghuspaithiya (infiltrator).”

Together, these speeches identify a community as outsiders usurping entitlements and anti-national threats. This progression reveals a tested campaign grammar where the trope of the “infiltrator” shifts the narrative from faith to belonging. When senior ministers use the language of exclusion, the threat carries bureaucratic plausibility, replacing the right to participate as an equal citizen with a test of loyalty and threat of removal.

Complaint against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma and AIMIM’s Tausif Alam

In two formal complaints submitted on November 10, 2025, CJP moved the Bihar Chief Electoral Officer and DGP against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma and AIMIM’s Tausif Alam. The complaints highlight a dangerous shift where hate and threats have replaced democratic debate during the Bihar election campaign. CJP called for urgent action, highlighting how “hate, fear, and violence” have been weaponised to replace civic discourse.

• Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma (Siwan Rally)

At an election rally on November 4, 2025, in Raghunathpur, Siwan, Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma delivered a speech that CJP described as “state-sponsored demonisation.” Sarma compared RJD candidate Osama Shahab to the global terrorist Osama bin Laden, urging the audience to “eliminate all Osama Bin Ladens” from Bihar.

The complaint notes that he framed the election as a Hindu versus Muslim battle, invoking figures like Babur and Aurangzeb and declaring that a victory for the opposition would be a “defeat for Hindus.” He further boasted about stopping salaries for “mullahs” and characterised Muslims as “infiltrators” threatening the safety of women. CJP argues this statements constitutes an “incitement to exterminatory politics” and a direct breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, as a sitting CM holds a heightened responsibility for neutrality.

• Tausif Alam (Kishanganj Rally)

Within 24 hours of the Siwan speech, AIMIM’s Tausif Alam delivered a retaliatory address at Laucha Naya Haat, Kishanganj. In response to RJD’s Tejashwi Yadav calling Asaduddin Owaisi an “extremist,” Alam issued a direct threat of grievous bodily harm. He told the crowd that “I will cut his eyes, fingers, and tongue if he dares insult Owaisi Sahab again.”

The complaint flags this as a “direct threat of physical mutilation” and a calculated attempt to intimidate political rivals. By replacing civic discourse with “open intimidation and violent abuse,” Alam’s speech is cited as a violation of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Representation of the People Act.

3. Targeted demographic hate speech in Pirpainti, Bhagalpur

On November 13, 2025, CJP filed a complaint with the Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar and the DGP against BJP MP Ashwini Kumar Choubey for inflammatory remarks made during a campaign in Pirpainti, Bhagalpur on November 9.

The complaint asserts that Choubey utilised his platform to deliver deeply communal and derogatory statements that directly target the Muslim population under the guise of national security. By appealing to the community to “reduce their population” and explicitly linking them to “ghuspaithiye” (infiltrators) allegedly crossing the border, the speech is described as hate propaganda that seeks to delegitimise the citizenship of Indian Muslims.

Remarks that constitute a “direct communal appeal” and “demographic vilification”

The complaint highlights specific statements where Choubey invoked demographic myths to create fear, stating that while the government provides infrastructure to all, the rising population of a specific community and the influx of infiltrators represent a threat of “vote theft.”

CJP argues that these remarks constitute a “direct communal appeal” and “demographic vilification,” violating Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibits religious appeals and the promotion of enmity. Furthermore, the speech is flagged under Sections 196 and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for outraging group dignity and promoting mischief.

Consequently, CJP in its complaint demanded the registration of an FIR, a ban on his further campaigning, and a public censure from the Election Commission.

4. Complaint against Ojing Tasing for electoral misconduct in Arunachal Pradesh

On December 9, 2025, CJP submitted an urgent complaint to Election Commission of India Arunachal Pradesh, regarding coercive and unlawful threats made during a campaign rally in Lower Dibang Valley on December 3, 2025. During the election period, the Minister unequivocally declared that panchayat segments where the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) loses will be denied government development schemes. He was recorded stating:

“Government schemes will not go to those panchayat segments where the BJP is defeated… I do what I say. As the panchayati raj minister, I mean what I say.”

CJP stated that these remarks constitute a direct abuse of state power and a misuse of official authority to influence voter behavior. By conditioning taxpayer-funded welfare on partisan victory, the Minister has transformed essential governance into a tool of political extortion. Such actions represent a textbook case of undue influence and intimidation, weaponising public resources to coerce the electorate.

CJP asserts that these statements violate Sections 123(1), 123(2), and 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibit bribery, undue influence, and the abuse of official positions. Furthermore, they breach the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which forbids linking development schemes to voting patterns. Constitutionally, the Minister’s threats violate Article 14 (Equality) and Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination), as government benefits must be distributed without political prejudice.

Consequently, CJP seek immediate action, including the issuance of a show-cause notice, a ban on further campaigning, the registration of an FIR for criminal intimidation, and a recommendation for the Minister’s removal from office to preserve the integrity of the democratic process.

CJP’s intervention in the Jubilee Hills by-election roadshow in Hyderabad against communal and derogatory appeals

CJP on November 11, 2025, approached the CEO Telangana regarding a complaint against BJP leader Bandi Sanjay Kumar for making communal and derogatory appeals during the Jubilee Hills by-election roadshow in Hyderabad. Kumar allegedly mocked Muslim religious practices, specifically the skull cap and namaz, while invoking his Hindu identity as a mark of “authenticity.” He reportedly stated, “If a day comes when I must wear a skull cap for votes, I’d rather cut off my head,” and asserted he would not “insult other faiths by faking a namaz.”

CJP’s complaint argues that these remarks, aimed at polarising voters and deriding opponents like Chief Minister Revanth Reddy, constitute a trifold offence against the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). By framing religious inclusivity as deceit and “vote-seeking hypocrisy,” the speech is characterised as hate speech intended to incite communal contempt.

5. CJP’s intervention against communal dog-whistles

CJP moved the Election Commission of India and the State Election Commission, Maharashtra, on December 19, 2025, seeking urgent action against BJP Mumbai President Ameet Satam for making inflammatory and hate-based remarks during a political event in Malad West. The complaint details how Satam, while the Model Code of Conduct was in force, delivered a speech alleging that “jihadis” had infiltrated the Goregaon Sports Club and accused Muslims of facilitating Rohingya and Bangladeshi migrants in illegally acquiring land and identity documents.

The complaint asserted that by propagating conspiracy narratives such as “vote jihad” and “land jihad,” Satam is accused of criminalising an entire religious community and using demographic fear to polarise the electorate.

CJP’s argues that such dehumanising tactics, which portrays Muslim citizens as conspirators and threats to governance, erodes the constitutional principles of equality and secularism. Consequently, CJP has sought immediate sanctions, including a show-cause notice and restrictions on Satam’s campaigning, to preserve the integrity of the electoral process and prevent the normalisation of communal targeting.

6. Constitutional and legal breaches: CJP’s multi-pronged legal strategy

Across all interventions in 2025, CJP has observed a recurring pattern of violations that threaten the very core of India’s democratic machinery. The complaints filed by CJP emphasise the following legal and constitutional anchors:

• Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951: Section 123(2) (Undue Influence): Whether it is Ojing Tasing threatening to cut off funds in Arunachal Pradesh or Tausif Alam threatening physical violence in Bihar, both constitute a direct interference with the free exercise of electoral rights through coercion.
• Section 123(3) & (3A): The interventions against Bandi Sanjay Kumar’s religious mockery and the inflammatory speeches of Nazia Elahi Khan and Ravinder Negi exemplify the prohibited use of religious symbols and the promotion of enmity between different classes of citizens for electoral gain.
• The Model Code of Conduct (MCC): The MCC is designed to ensure a level playing field. CJP’s rigorous complaints against Himanta Biswa Sarma and Ashwini Kumar Choubey highlight how the misuse of government machinery and the making of communal appeals—under the guise of “national security”—violate the spirit of “free and fair elections.”
• Constitutional Mandates: Articles 14 & 15: These articles mandate that the State cannot discriminate against citizens. Using welfare schemes as a “reward” or a “threat” for voting patterns is a direct subversion of the right to equality.
• Article 21: The right to live with dignity is compromised when voters are intimidated into submission through the threat of economic deprivation, physical harm, or state-sanctioned demonisation.

Conclusion

The interventions of 2025 demonstrate that the battle for India’s democracy is increasingly being fought in the arena of public discourse. When elected representatives and political leaders feel emboldened to use “exterminatory politics,” “political extortion,” or “hate propaganda” as campaign tools, the role of civil society as a constitutional vanguard becomes more critical than ever. CJP’s year-long campaign has consistently unmasked how communal dog-whistles and the weaponization of welfare are used to replace democratic choice with coercion.

CJP remains dedicated to the principle that public welfare schemes—funded by taxpayers—belong to the people, not to a political party. We believe that the secular foundation of our Constitution is not a mere suggestion but a mandatory framework for all political participation. Our documented cases from Bihar to Arunachal Pradesh, and from Delhi to Telangana, serve as a reminder that the pulpit of a campaign rally is subject to the rule of law.

As we move into 2026, CJP will continue to monitor, document, and intervene, even legally challenge every attempt to substitute constitutional justice with communal revenge, ensuring that the integrity of the Indian electoral mandate remains protected from the corruptive influence of hate.

Related:

Law as Resistance: A year of CJP’s interventions against a rising tide of hate

Fighting Hate in 2024: How CJP Held Power to Account

2024: CJP’s battle against communal rallies before and after they unfold

The post CJP 2025: a constitutional vanguard against hate and coercion during elections appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The statement recorded that, PUCL was constrained to point out that Himanta Biswa Sarma has a notorious track record of making hateful statements about religious minorities, from Christians to Muslims as well as statements which reinforces the legitimacy of caste hierarchy and order. The rhetoric of the Chief Minister has often gratuitously and pejoratively invoked the term “jihad” in connection with various issues involving the Muslim community.

In November 2025, the Citizens for Justice & Peace had complained to the Election Commission of India, under the Representation of People’s Act, on Himanta Biswa Sarma’s speech filled with hate delivered during the Bihar state assembly elections. Details may be read here. Another complaint to the National Commission for Minorities may be read here.

“In August 2024, Sarma recklessly accused the University of Science and Technology, Meghalaya, a Muslim-run institution, of engaging in “flood jihad”, blaming it for the outbreak of floods in Guwahati. He has also made the ridiculous claim that the university has a Mecca-like structure, and therefore it is a symbol of “jihad”. Similarly, Sarma also made the unfounded allegation that Bengali Muslim farmers were practising “land and fertiliser jihad” by using high amounts of fertilisers on their crops.

Moreover, the human right platform links this spiral in hate speech in the north-eastern state with the 2026 Vidhan Sabha elections. “As Assam prepares for its next state general election in 2026, Sarma has intensified his targeting of Bengali Muslims. Sarma said that between ‘four to five lakh Miya voters’ would be removed from the electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in the state. He also emphasised that “Himanta Biswa Sarma and the BJP are directly against Miyas” and urged people to “trouble” Miyas saying, “only if they face troubles will they leave Assam”.

Besides, says the PUCL statement, “He (Sarma) has made no bones of not only discriminating against Bengali speaking Assamese Muslims but has also illegally incited others to discriminate against them. On January 28, 2025, he said that, ‘Whoever can give trouble in any way should give, including you. In a rickshaw, if the fare is Rs 5, give them Rs 4. Only if they face troubles will they leave Assam… These are not issues. Himanta Biswas Sarma and the BJP are directly against Miyas. What is the point of telling us that these are issues? We are saying it openly; we are not hiding it. Earlier, people were scared; now I myself am encouraging people to keep giving troubles”.’”

The Chief Minister has moved from speech which demeans, degrades and humiliates to speech which incites civil society to demean, degrade and humiliate Bengali speaking Muslims. With none of this hate speech facing any significant pushback, the Chief Minister has been emboldened to further extend the boundaries of his hateful and unconstitutional rhetoric.

Background 

On February 8, 2026,  a video which has come to be referred to as the `Point-blank video’ purportedly showed Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma aiming a rifle and firing a shot at two individuals — one wearing a skullcap and the other sporting a beard that looked like a Muslim man. The wall the photo was hung on bore the words “No mercy” – with the caption “point-blank shot”. Though the outrage which greeted this video resulted in the video being removed from social media page of the BJP Assam unit, the damage had been done. For the video reinforced the CMs constant diatribe against Bengali Muslims as intruders who have stolen the jobs of Assamese thereby inflaming passions with the potential to result in major violence against Muslims and other minorities.

The only conclusion one can draw is that the incitement to murder was a bridge too far as far as what was acceptable from the Chief Minister and he was forced to take down the video.

However, the fact that the video was deleted cannot be allowed to obscure the history of Sarma’s repeated violations of his constitutional oath as Chief Minister to ‘faithfully and conscientiously discharge’ his ‘duties as a Minister for the State’ and to ‘do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.’

The PUCL has also strongly condemned the language of the Assam Chief Minister as a complete repudiation of his oath of office. The Chief Minister has used language which demeans and degrades Assam’s Muslims, incites discrimination against them and goes so far as to incite the murder of Muslims. None of this language is sanctioned by the Constitution. The Chief Minister has violated his oath not to discriminate on grounds of religion and not to incite violence against members of a community. Far from promoting fraternity, which is the most basic constitutional obligation of a head of state, he has gone out of his way to promote divisiveness, hatred and violence in Assam.

“The Chief Minister has thus been a serial violator of the most basic norms which govern a constitutional democracy as well as the constitutional responsibility of a head of state.  His language has made it amply clear that he does not seek to govern on behalf of the Muslim communities of Assam. As such he has unequivocally and expressly repudiated his constitutional oath to govern without ‘fear or favour, affection or ill-will.’ In particular the Chief Minister has made it clear that he governs with an animus which targets the Muslim community. The Chief Minister has thus proved himself constitutionally incapable of abiding by the mandate of the Constitution that all person are equal before the law.

“The PUCL calls for the Chief Minister to resign as he has repeatedly violated his oath of office to govern without ‘fear or favour, affection or ill-will.’ The PUCL also calls on the Prime Minister to take action against the Chief Minister under Article 355 to ensure that Assam is governed in ‘accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.’”

The statement has been issued by the Kavita Srivastava, president of the PUCL and Dr V Suresh, General Secretary.

Citizens for Justice and Peace,  had in this creatively analysed this new political playbook of parties like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) who use a full-fledged, cynical and multi-layered hate assault –(mis) using fringe groups to star campaigners—to systemically dish out hatred, at peace time but especially during an increasingly weaponised election cycle. The article may be read here.

Related:

Law as Resistance: A year of CJP’s interventions against a rising tide of hate

Hate Watch 2025 | Tracking Hate, Defending Democracy | CJP

Poster-boy of ‘Hindutva’, Assam CM targets, Himanto Biswas Sarma threatens ex-US President with Islamophobic Slur: ‘Hussain Obama’

Hate Watch: Himanta Biswas Sarma on ‘Love Jihad’ during the Gujarat poll campaign

The post Himanta Biswa Sarma must resign as Chief Minister of Assam for serial violations of his oath of office: PUCL appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The 2025 Intervention Tracker:

• NCSC: 2 Complaints
• NCM: 6 Complaints
• NHRC: 2 urgent memorandums
• Police/Administration: 6 Complaints
• Preventive Actions: 2 pre-emptive Complaints

1.  National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC): Battling caste-based atrocities

In early January 2025 (January 8), CJP approached the NCSC to highlight a troubling spike in atrocities against Dalit communities across Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh. These complaints, detailing incidents from late 2024, emphasised that such violence is rooted in a deeply ingrained discriminatory mind-set. CJP’s intervention sought to move the Commission beyond mere observation toward active enforcement of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!

“Dignity for All”: a national mapping of 30 critical atrocities across 9 states

On June 24, CJP further filed a major formal complaint documenting 30 distinct incidents of violence across nine states, ranging from horrific sexual assaults on minors to the murder of a 10-year-old boy in Etah (Uttar Pradesh). Invoking Article 338 (5) of the Constitution, CJP sought an urgent probe into these crimes, which included social boycotts and the denial of cremation rights.

Widespread crimes against SCs violating the PoA Act and Civil Rights

CJP Stated in its complaint that, these incidents directly contravene the spirit and letter of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and more critically, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST PoA Act), which specifically aims to prevent atrocities against Scheduled Castes and to provide for special courts for the trial of such offenses and for relief and rehabilitation of the victims. The recurring nature of these incidents, especially the multiple instances of sexual violence and physical attacks, reveals a severe lapse in the implementation and enforcement of these crucial legislations.

Targeted crimes against SCs, a pattern of abuse

Through this complaint, CJP highlights that systemic, widespread incidents of caste-driven oppression that are prevalent countrywide, across states governed by different political dispensations pointing to a deep-rooted societal malaise that has not only acquired a frightening level of ‘normalised violence and oppression’ but also is ‘allowed because of structured levels of immunity’.

CJP also stated in its complaint that as per the NCRB report, there are a total of 70,818 cases of atrocities against SCs and 12,159 against STs that remained pending for investigation at the end of the year 2021. A total of 2,63,512 cases of SCs and 42,512 cases of STs were placed for trial in the courts. At the end of the year, more than 96 percent of the total cases were still pending for trial. Though the charge-sheeting percentage was more than 80%, but the conviction rate remained below 40%.

Why did CJP intervene?

CJP stepped in because these atrocities were no longer isolated crimes but had become the “new normal” of daily humiliation and violence revealing spiralling trends. When local police failed to register FIRs or provided “structured immunity” to dominant-caste perpetrators, it became clear that only a high-level constitutional push could break the deadlock. CJP’s intervention was necessary to force the NCSC to address the systemic collapse of the PoA Act and protect the basic human dignity of the marginalised communities.

1.  National Human Rights Commission (NHRC): CJP’s Memorandum 

On May 31, 2025, CJP submitted a memorandum to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) regarding a major human rights crisis in Assam. In memorandum CJP reported that between May 23 and May 31, the Assam Border Police conducted secretive night raids across 33 districts, detaining at least 300 individuals, primarily Bengali-speaking Muslims, without warrants or legal paperwork. While some were eventually released, approximately 145 people remained untraceable, leading to fears of illegal “pushbacks” across the Indo-Bangladesh border.

The memorandum highlighted that many detainees were already involved in ongoing legal cases or had lived in India for generations. CJP argued that these actions bypassed the rule of law and violated constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22. CJP has asked the NHRC to demand a full report from the government, set up a fact-finding committee, and ensure the immediate safety and return of those unlawfully detained or expelled.

On June 4, 2025, CJP submitted a supplementary memorandum to the NHRC providing harrowing first-person testimonies of illegal night detentions and forced expulsions in Assam. This submission followed the initial May 31 memo and documented a systematic campaign where the Assam Border Police allegedly bypassed all judicial sanctions to deport Bengali-speaking Muslims, including the elderly, the chronically ill, and individuals protected by court stay orders.

The memorandum included testimonies from survivors like Hajera Khatun and Sona Bhanu, who described being blindfolded, fingerprinted without consent, and abandoned in “no-man’s land” swamps under the cover of darkness. Families reported finding their missing loved ones only through viral social media videos filmed in Bangladesh. Notably, CJP revealed that individuals previously released from detention centres through legal efforts—such as Doyjan Bibi and Abdul Sheikh—were re-detained and forcibly removed despite complying with all bail conditions. CJP has urged the NHRC to launch an independent inquiry, summon top officials, and ensure the safe return of all those subjected to these extra-legal deportations.

Rationale of CJP’s Intervention

This crisis demanded CJP’s intervention because the state was operating entirely outside the law, conducting what looked more like abductions than legal detentions. By disappearing people in the dead of night and “pushing” them across borders, the administration bypassed the entire judicial system, including the Supreme Court’s own stay orders. CJP acted to stop this “stealth purge” and ensure that no person is rendered stateless through secretive, extra-legal executive actions.

III. National Commission for Minorities (NCM: Stemming Organised Hate

Throughout 2025, CJP acted as a constitutional vanguard, filing six major complaints with the National Commission for Minorities (NCM).

• “Dharma Sansads” and 2. “Trishul Deekshas”

The beginning of the year 2025 was marred by high-decibel events like “Dharma Sansads” and “Trishul Deekshas” in regions like Delhi, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh. These gatherings were marked by explicit calls for economic boycotts and physical violence against Muslims and Christians. CJP’s complaints to the NCM detailed how speakers propagated baseless conspiracies such as “love jihad” and “land jihad” and these events created an atmosphere of deep fear and uncertainty. Consequently, we urged the Commission to hold those responsible accountable by ensuring FIRs are filed under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023

• Complaint over hate speech at Trishul Deeksha events

On January 29, CJP had filed a formal complaint with the NCM, raising alarm over a series of Trishul Deeksha events held in December 2024 across Punjab, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Organised by far-right groups such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bajrang Dal, and Antarrashtriya Hindu Parishad (AHP), these gatherings featured openly inflammatory rhetoric, hate speech, and mobilisation against minority communities, particularly Muslims and Christians.

• Complaint against hate speeches at ‘Dharma Sansad’ events

On January 22, CJP filed a complaint with the NCM regarding a series of hate speeches delivered at ‘Dharma Sansad’ events on December 20, 2024, led by Yati Narsinghanand and other right-wing figures. Despite being denied permission to hold the event in Haridwar, the gathering proceeded at another location, where inflammatory and violent rhetoric was once again espoused, targeting Muslims and calling for a Hindu-only nation. The speeches at the event included derogatory language and explicit calls for physical violence against Muslims, promoting a vision of a society devoid of religious diversity.

• The Hindu Sanatan Ekta Padyatra: a ten-day mapping of fear

On December 2, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) submitted an exhaustive complaint to the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) regarding the Hindu Sanatan Ekta Padyatra, a massive 10-day mobilisation led by Dhirendra Krishna Shastri. Traversing 422 village panchayats across Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh, the march was documented by CJP as a systematic campaign of “othering” that weaponised religious identity. CJP’s detailed mapping of speeches Categorised the rhetoric into direct hate speech and high-intensity fearmongering, notably demographic conspiracy theories claiming Hindus were on the “brink of becoming minorities.”

The yatra featured exclusionary slogans such as “Jo Ram ka nahi wo kisi kaam ka nahi” and explicit calls for the economic boycott of Muslims and Christians. CJP highlighted how speakers used their spiritual authority to normalise “bulldozer justice” and incite historical resentment, such as invoking the Babri Masjid demolition to demand the reclamation of other religious sites. Warning that such organised campaigns, involving an estimated 3,00,000 participants, could trigger real-world violence, CJP urged the NCM to launch a fact-finding mission. Crucially, the organisation prayed for the appointment of nodal officers as per the Tehseen Poonawalla guidelines to protect vulnerable communities from the volatile atmosphere generated by the padyatra’s rhetoric.

1. Targeting Bengali-origin Muslims

In late September (September 30, 2025), submitted a comprehensive complaint to the National Commission for Minorities (NCM), highlighting what it described as an “alarming and coordinated escalation of hate speech” across India. The complaint documents how Bengali-origin Muslims, many of whom are lawful Indian citizens, are being systematically vilified as “Bangladeshis” and “ghuspaithiye” (infiltrators) in election rallies, public protests, and online campaigns. CJP’s submission to the NCM Chairperson requested a full inquiry and preventive directions to curb vigilante activity, emphasising that such rhetoric directly contravenes Supreme Court directions on hate crimes.

• CJP’s key demands to the NCM

The complaint called upon the Commission to:

• Take legal cognisance under the NCM Act and initiate an inquiry.

• Direct registration of FIRs against individuals and organisations spreading hate.

• Curb vigilante activity by outfits like Bir Lachit Sen and All Tai Ahom Students’ Union.

• Ensure police compliance with Supreme Court orders on suo motu action.

• Enforce preventive measures, such as videographing rallies and banning repeat hate offenders.

• Urge social media platforms to remove hateful content.

• Launch a fact-finding mission on the profiling, harassment, and eviction of Bengali-origin Muslims nationwide.

• CJP’s key intervention in systemic targeted harassment and hate-motivated violence against Christians in Rajasthan (September, 2025)

On October 8, 2025, CJP filed a formal complaint with the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) regarding a surge in targeted harassment and hate-motivated attacks against the Christian community in Rajasthan throughout September 2025. The complaint highlights a series of disturbing incidents following the introduction of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill, 2025. Key flashpoints included a police raid on a children’s hostel in Alwar on September 3, the coercive interrogation of believers in Kotputli-Behror on September 9, and the forceful closure of St. Paul’s Hostel School in Dungarpur on September 11. Most notably, on September 21 in Jaipur, a mob of 40–50 activists assaulted a private prayer meeting, injuring eight people.

CJP urged the Commission to take immediate cognizance of these events, which they describe as a “coordinated campaign” involving vigilante violence and administrative bias. CJP requested a time-bound investigation into police misconduct and the registration of FIRs under BNS Sections 196 and 299. They further called for the implementation of Supreme Court guidelines from the Tehseen Poonawalla case to ensure accountability and the protection of constitutional rights under Articles 14, 21, and 25.

Action Taken by NCM: Following the formal complaint lodged by CJP, the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) initiated official proceedings on October 14, 2025, by issuing a directive to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan. In its formal communication, the Commission stated that “The complainant should be apprised of the action taken in the matter and the Commission should also be informed.”

• The rise of extra-legal vigilantism and “Identity Policing”

On December 18, 2025, CJP formally approached the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) to report a surge in vigilante violence and state-led targeted evictions. The comprehensive complaint documents a disturbing pattern of incidents occurring between September and November 2025, primarily targeting Muslim and Christian communities across multiple states. CJP highlighted five critical areas of concern as physical vigilantism involving cow protection and moral policing; economic intimidation through informal boycotts of minority-owned businesses; disruption of Christian prayer meetings under the guise of preventing conversions; coercive identity policing; and large-scale demolitions that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations without adequate rehabilitation.

The central theme of the CJP’s complaint is the emergence of “self-appointed enforcers” who act with a perceived sense of impunity. CJP argued before the NCM that these are not isolated events but a recurring pattern that erodes constitutional guarantees of equality and religious freedom. The organisation expressed grave concern over selective law enforcement, noting that police often act upon vigilante complaints while ignoring the initial unlawful acts of the perpetrators. CJP has urged the NCM to demand action-taken reports from state governments, ensure the impartial application of criminal law, and safeguard the livelihoods and dignity of minority groups against normalisation of such violence.

Action Taken by NCM: On January 23, 2026, the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) has officially taken cognizance of the representation submitted by CJP on December 18, and has registered the case. Acting on complaint, the Commission formally forwarded a copy of the complete representation to the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi, for urgent consideration and appropriate intervention.

III. Police Authorities: Demanding Neutrality & Accountability

In 2025, CJP filed 5 major collective complaints with police and administration, across several states, to demand accountability, immediate preventive action, and a strict adherence to the rule of law.

“In the line of Crossfire”: when CJP demanded authorities to Act

Throughout February and March, CJP filed multiple state-wide complaints against BJP MLA and Minister Nitesh Rane for inflammatory speeches delivered in Pune, Sindhudurg, and Ratnagiri. CJP contended that as an elected representative in a position of significant influence, Rane bore a heightened legal and ethical responsibility to maintain communal harmony. Invoking the Supreme Court’s landmark Amish Devgan judgment, which distinguishes between free speech and harmful incitement, the organisation filed a series of formal complaints to demand that law enforcement act decisively against rhetoric that threatened the state’s social fabric.

1.  Nanijdham, Ratnagiri – On March 28, 2025, CJP approached the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate of Ratnagiri regarding a speech delivered by Rane during a public felicitation. The complaint documented how Rane propagated baseless conspiracy theories like “love jihad” and “land jihad,” utilising Islamophobic slurs and specifically targeting religious sites such as Mazars and Dargahs. CJP argued that this inflammatory language was a direct attempt to stir fear and mistrust toward the Muslim community, citing the Amish Devgan standard that such speech serves no legitimate purpose other than to sow division and provoke social discord.
2.  Wagholi, Pune – On March 18, 2025, CJP approached the Additional Director General (Law & Order) and the Pune Police regarding a contentious speech delivered at a temple in Wagholi. In this instance, Rane openly advocated for housing discrimination, urging Hindus to rent properties exclusively to fellow Hindus and warning that renting to even one “Aslam” would lead to a demographic takeover. CJP asserted that this rhetoric incited segregation and violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Furthermore, Rane’s fabrication of a coordinated plot to turn India into an Islamic nation by 2047 was flagged as a dangerous exploitation of public anxiety designed to dehumanise an entire community.
3.  Sindhudurg District – On March 7, 2025, CJP filed a joint complaint with the SP and Collector of Sindhudurg addressing speeches delivered in Kundal and Sawantwadi. These events, organised by right-wing outfits, featured Rane warning locals about “Islamisation” and issuing explicit threats. In Sawantwadi, Rane reportedly told the audience to contact him directly to “settle” matters if anyone “kept an evil eye” on his religion, pointedly remarking that he would ensure such individuals would not return to their place of worship on Fridays. CJP highlighted this as a clear incitement to communal violence and a violation of Supreme Court mandates that require police to take suo moto action against hate speech regardless of the speaker’s political standing.
4.  Nagpur City –  On April 24, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a formal complaint with the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Maharashtra, and the Nagpur Police Commissioner regarding a divisive speech delivered by right-wing influencer Kajal Hindustani (Kajal Singhala). The speech, delivered during a public “Shivjanmotsav” event in Nagpur on February 19, 2025, targeted the Christian and Muslim communities through inflammatory narratives and baseless conspiracy theories.

CJP’s submitted that Hindustani’s rhetoric—which characterised conversions as being traded for “a sack of rice” and utilised the “Love Jihad” trope—meets the definition of hate speech as established in the Supreme Court’s Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1 ruling. The complaint argues that such statements serve no purpose other than to sow mistrust, demean minority religious practices, and dehumanise marginalised sections.

Partisan conduct by Jagaon Police: CJP’s intervention

CJP intervened in October 2025 following a distressing breach of professional conduct by the police in Jalgaon. CJP filed a comprehensive complaint with the Director General of Police (DGP) of Maharashtra and the Superintendent of Police in Jalgaon, calling for immediate disciplinary action against officials from the Jamner Police Station. This demand for accountability arose after police personnel were observed publicly participating in a communal procession organised by Shiv Pratisthan Hindustan—the very organisation whose members are accused in the brutal August 2025 lynching of 20-year-old Suleman Pathan.

The complaint, which was also marked to the Maharashtra Home Department and the National Human Rights Commission, contends that such conduct is a blatant violation of the police oath of office and the Maharashtra Police Conduct Rules. CJP argued that the participation of investigating officers in a rally organised by a far right group linked to the accused is not just an ethical failure, but a total collapse of the constitutional principle of neutrality. Such actions severely compromise the integrity of criminal investigations and shatter the public’s—particularly the victim’s family’s—faith in the fairness of the legal process.

In its pursuit of justice for the Pathan family, CJP has demanded the immediate suspension of the concerned officers and the transfer of the Suleman Pathan investigation to an independent agency. Furthermore, the organisation has pressed for a state-wide directive to reaffirm the necessity of police impartiality in all communal and hate-crime cases.

Curbing market vigilantism: the Malabar Hill incident

In late November (November 25, 2025), CJP moved against a former political leader who conducted unauthorised “Aadhaar checks” of Muslim vendors at Mumbai’s Malabar Hill. CJP identified this as an unlawful assumption of policing functions and religious profiling intended to disrupt the livelihoods of minority communities. By demanding identity documents and instructing Hindu vendors to display saffron flags, these actors attempted to enforce a system of visible segregation. CJP’s complaint urged the police to protect the vendors’ right to trade and to register FIRs against the vigilante actors.

Action Taken by NCM: Pursuant to the CJP’s complaint submitted on November 25, 2025 against Raj Saraf, the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) has taken cognisance of the matter and forwarded the complaint to the concerned authorities for appropriate inquiry and action. The complaint was received from the office of the National Commission for Minorities, Malabar Hill, Thane, and was thereafter transmitted to V. P. Marg Police Station for further investigation. The police authorities have acknowledged receipt of the complaint and have initiated the process of inquiry in accordance with law.

1.  Preventive Action against Hate-filled Gatherings

CJP’s proactive stand against the proposed communal mobilisation in Pune and Goa

In January, CJP proactively filed two complaints with the Pune and Goa Police to halt “Hindu Rashtra Jagruti” events. Highlighting the track record of the organising outfits in promoting Islamophobia and economic boycotts, CJP urged authorities to invoke Sections 130 and 132 of the BNSS, 2023 to prevent cognisable offences. CJP emphasised in its complaints that allowing such gatherings would violate fundamental rights and contravene Indian criminal law, particularly by inciting communal tensions in otherwise peaceful regions.

• When CJP asks Pune Police to halt right-wing’s ‘Hindu Rashtra Jagruti Andolan’ event

On January 4, 2025, CJP filed a formal complaint with the Pune Police seeking immediate preventive action against the “Hindu Rashtra Jagruti Andolan” scheduled for the following day. Organised by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS), the event raised alarms due to the group’s history of inflammatory rhetoric regarding “Love Jihad,” economic boycotts, and religious conversions. CJP argued that such gatherings stoke communal tensions and violate constitutional rights, citing a Mumbai precedent where a similar rally was denied permission to preserve social harmony.

• CJP seeks preventive action against HJS’s Goa event

On January 22, 2025, CJP further filed a formal complaint with the Goa Police, seeking immediate preventive action against the “Hindu Rashtra Jagruti Sabha” event scheduled for January 25 in Sanguem. Forwarded to the Inspector General and Superintendent of Police, the complaint highlighted the potential threat posed by the organiser, Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS), a group with a documented history of hate speech and divisive rhetoric. CJP raised a sharp alarm, noting that the HJS frequently propagates baseless conspiracies like “Love Jihad” and calls for economic boycotts against minorities, which could ignite communal tensions in a diverse region.

Rebuilding faith in the Rule of Law

CJP’s 2025 interventions were not just about reporting crimes; they were about providing a blueprint for administrative action. Through the distribution of our handbook, “Towards a Hate-Free Nation,” CJP equipped police and district administrations with the latest jurisprudence from the Supreme Court. We maintain that combating hate is a collective responsibility, and our relentless intervention with the NCM, NCSC, NHRC & other constitutional bodies/authorities and state police/administration remains the frontier of this effort to reclaim the secular and democratic fabric of India.

Related

Fighting Hate in 2024: How CJP Held Power to Account

2024: CJP’s battle against communal rallies before and after they unfold

Holding power to account: CJP’s efforts to combat hate and polarisation

The post Turning the Constitution into Action: CJP’s year against a rising tide of hate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the centre of this legal moment is Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, whose public utterances over the last five years—now exhaustively catalogued before the Court—are alleged to represent not isolated political rhetoric but a sustained pattern of communal vilification, exclusionary exhortation, and legitimisation of social and economic discrimination against Muslims, particularly Bengali-origin Muslims in Assam.

The petitions—filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), CPI leader Annie Raja, a group of twelve citizens comprising former IAS, IFS officers, diplomats, academics and civil society actors, and Islamic clerics’ body Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind—seek criminal accountability, independent investigation, and for the first time, judicially enforceable standards governing the speech of constitutional functionaries.

“Point Blank Shot”, “No Mercy”: The video that triggered urgency

The immediate trigger for the CPIM and Annie Raja petitions is a video uploaded on February 7, 2026, from the official X (formerly Twitter) handle of BJP Assam.

The video depicts Chief Minister Sarma firing a gun at animated images of two men shown within a crosshair, portrayed as Muslims. As the gun discharges, the figures are struck repeatedly. The visuals are overlaid with phrases such as “Point blank shot” and “No mercy”, culminating in slogans that read:

• “Foreigner-free Assam”
• “Community, land, roots first”
• “Why did you go to Pakistan”
• “No forgiveness for Bangladeshis”

The video ends with a stylised, cowboy-like portrait of the Chief Minister himself.

Although the video was deleted following widespread outrage, the petition stresses that it continues to circulate widely, amplified by unofficial accounts and political messaging networks. The petition describes it as the most explicit and violent crystallisation of an already entrenched political narrative, one that frames an entire community as legitimate targets of exclusion and hostility.

Urgent mentioning before the Supreme Court

Senior Advocate Nizam Pasha mentioned the CPIM and Annie Raja petitions before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, seeking urgent listing.

“We seek urgent intervention of this Court with respect to disturbing speeches made by the sitting Chief Minister of Assam. Complaints have been filed, but no FIRs have been registered,” Pasha submitted, as per LiveLaw, specifically referring to the February 7 video and earlier speeches.

The Chief Justice remarked that electoral seasons increasingly see political disputes entering constitutional courts, observing that “part of the elections is fought inside the Supreme Court.” However, the Court indicated that it would examine the matter and grant a date.

Details of the petition filed by the CPIM

1. Not an Isolated Video: A five-year pattern of exclusionary speech

Crucially, the petitions insist that the February 7 video cannot be viewed in isolation.

The CPIM petition places before the Court a detailed chronology stretching from 2021 to February 2026, documenting a steady escalation in the Chief Minister’s public rhetoric. These include statements that allegedly:

• Conflate illegal immigration with Muslim identity
• Repeatedly deploy the slur “Miya” to refer to Bengali-speaking Muslims
• Call for denial of land, employment, transport, and livelihoods
• Advocate social and economic boycott framed as “civil disobedience”
• Encourage harassment through electoral roll objections
• Suggest removal of voting rights for members of a religious community

One of the most striking passages cited urges citizens to create conditions in which Muslims “cannot stay in Assam” by denying them rickshaws, shops, vehicles and land. Another openly exhorts supporters to short-pay rickshaw pullers belonging to the targeted community so that they are compelled to leave.

The petition argues that when such statements emanate from the head of the elected executive, they do not remain rhetorical—they acquire coercive force, shaping behaviour on the ground.

2. From Speech to Social Harm: “Acting on the CM’s directions”

What distinguishes these petitions from earlier hate speech challenges is the emphasis on documented social consequences.

The CPIM petition cites reports of daily-wage workers being harassed, rickshaw pullers being deliberately underpaid, and individuals being confronted and asked to vacate neighbourhoods for being “Bangladeshi Muslims.” In several instances, videos circulating online allegedly show perpetrators explicitly stating that they are acting in accordance with the Chief Minister’s directions.

The petition warns that this marks a dangerous constitutional threshold: the translation of executive rhetoric into informal, decentralised enforcement by citizens, blurring the line between State authority and vigilante conduct.

3. Immigration, NRC and the charge of deliberate conflation

A central legal argument advanced is that the Chief Minister’s rhetoric deliberately collapses the distinction between illegal immigration and Muslim identity.

The CPIM petitions point out that immigration is religion-neutral under Indian law, and that NRC data demonstrates that a majority of those excluded were non-Muslims. The selective focus on Muslims, therefore, is argued to expose the communal intent underlying the speeches.

What is framed publicly as demographic anxiety or border security, the petition contends, operates in effect as religious profiling and collective punishment, incompatible with Articles 14, 15 and 21.

4. Constitutional oath and misfeasance in public office

The CPIM petition anchors its challenge in the constitutional oath taken by ministers to uphold sovereignty, integrity, fraternity and equality.

Relying on decisions such as Manoj Narula v Union of India, State of Maharashtra v SS Chavan and Daulatmal Jain, the petition argues that repeated, deliberate use of State authority to stigmatise and exclude a community constitutes misfeasance in public office and a breach of constitutional trust.

The petition further invokes the Supreme Court’s continuing mandamus in the hate speech batch (Qurban Ali, Shaheen Abdulla), which mandates suo motu registration of FIRs in cases attracting Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 505 IPC (now reflected in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita). The complete absence of FIRs, despite repeated complaints, is characterised as systemic executive impunity.

5. Reliefs Sought: FIRs, SIT, transfer of investigation

Given that the alleged offender is a sitting Chief Minister, the petition seeks:

• Mandatory registration of FIRs under the BNS
• Constitution of an independent Special Investigation Team
• Transfer of all related investigations to an independent authority

The petition argues that State and Central agencies cannot reasonably be expected to act independently when the subject of investigation occupies the apex of political power.

Other petitions filed

1. A Parallel Constitutional Question: Who regulates the speech of the powerful?

Running alongside the CPIM petition is a broader writ petition filed by twelve citizens—former civil servants, diplomats, academics and public intellectuals—which raises a distinct but connected constitutional concern: the complete absence of standards governing the public speech of constitutional authorities.

As per LiveLaw, this petition highlights not only the Assam CM’s remarks on “Miya Muslims,” “flood jihad,” “love jihad,” and voter removal, but also similar patterns across states and offices—references to “land jihad,” “infiltrators,” “anti-nationals,” and exhortations to “avenge history.”

The petition argues that while individual statements may fall short of statutory hate speech thresholds, their cumulative effect corrodes constitutional morality, erodes fraternity, and legitimises discriminatory governance.

Drawing on Navtej Singh Johar, Joseph Shine, and Government of NCT of Delhi, the petition contends that constitutional morality must operate as a restraint on those who exercise public power.

“Holders of public office are not ordinary speakers,” the petition emphasises. Their words carry the imprimatur of the State, shape administrative behaviour, and have a chilling effect on vulnerable communities—even absent explicit incitement.

The petition seeks declaratory relief that official speech must conform to constitutional values, and urges the Court to lay down guidelines that regulate conduct without curtailing free speech. Detailed report may be read here.

2. Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind: Hate speech, disguised and normalised

Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind has reinforced these concerns by flagging Sarma’s January 27 statement that four to five lakh “Miya voters” would be removed during electoral roll revision.

According to the report of LiveLaw, the clerics’ body argues that many such utterances function as disguised hate speech, escaping prosecution due to selective enforcement and unchecked police discretion.

Relying on India Hate Lab data, Jamiat notes a 74% rise in hate speech incidents in 2024, with nearly 98% targeting Muslims, and links this surge to rising hate crimes against minorities.

A Common Grievance: Police inaction and the charge of selective enforcement

Across petitions, a common grievance emerges: law enforcement’s pick-and-choose approach.

While FIRs are swiftly registered against minorities, complaints against powerful public officials remain unattended. This, the petitioners argue, violates Article 14 and hollow out the rule of law.

Invoking Lalita Kumari, Tehseen Poonawalla, Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan and Kaushal Kishore, petitioners urge the Court to exercise its powers under Article 142 to impose binding accountability mechanisms.

A constitutional crossroads

Taken together, these petitions force the Supreme Court to confront a profound constitutional dilemma:

• Can holders of constitutional office weaponise speech without consequence?
• Does repetitive exclusionary rhetoric itself constitute unconstitutional governance?
• Can constitutional morality be judicially enforced against executive speech?
• When does silence and inaction by institutions become complicity?

With judgment reserved in the broader hate speech matter, the Assam CM petitions may well shape the next doctrinal chapter on hate speech, executive accountability, and the constitutional limits of political power.

Related:

When Genocide is provoked from the Stage: Raebareli hate speeches, Bhagalpur dog whistles, and a delayed FIR

The Politics of Processions: How the Sanatan Ekta Padyatra amplified hate speech in plain sight

The Orchestrated Extremism: An analysis of communal hate speech in India’s election cycle (2024–2025)

CJP urges NCM action against hate speech campaign vilifying Bengali Muslims as ‘Infiltrators’

‘Islamophobia dominates Indian hate speech’: Equality Labs report on Facebook India

The post Supreme Court asked to intervene as petitions flag “normalisation of hate” in Assam CM’s public speeches appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the communication, the signatories have stated that these series of public statements made by the Chief Minister of Assam, Shri Himanta Biswa Sarma, on their face, amount to hate speech, executive intimidation, and open vilification of a particular community commonly referred to as the “Miyan” or Bengal origin Muslim community. Over the course of more than 100 years they have become a part of the larger Assamese society by adopting the Assamese language and assimilating with the Assamese culture, says the communication. Besides, the letter states that the statements of the Chief Minister, delivered repeatedly in public forums, go far beyond political rhetoric and enter the prohibited constitutional zone of dehumanisation, collective stigmatisation, and threats of state-sponsored harassment.

In addition, the letter enumerates what they see violations of the Oath of Constitutional Office by the Chief Minister.

The entire letter may be read below:

February 5, 2026

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice Gauhati High Court

Guwahati, Assam

Subject: Request for Suo Moto Cognisance of Repeated Hate Speech, Executive Interference, and Constitutional Violations by the Chief Minister of Assam

Respected My Lord,

We write this letter with profound faith in the constitutional role of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court as guardian of the fundamental rights.

It is with deep concem that we draw the attention of this Hon’ble Court to a series of public statements made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Assam, Shri Himanta Biswa Sarma, which, on their face, amount to hate speech, executive intimidation, and open vilification of a particular community commonly referred to as the “Miyan” or Bengal origin Muslim community. Over the course of more than 100 years they have become a part of the larger Assamese society by adopting the Assamese language and assimilating with the Assamese culture. The statements of the Chief Minister, delivered repeatedly in public forums, go far beyond political rhetoric and enter the prohibited constitutional zone of dehumanisation, collective stigmatisation, and threats of state-sponsored harassment.

(A) Instigation for physical harm, economic discrimination and social humiliation

In a recent public statement Chief Minister of Assam instigated people to make people from Miyan community suffer, he categorically stated, “Whoever can, in whichever way should make Miyan suffer. If you board a rickshaw, if the fare is 5, pay them #4”. Such a statement, coming from the highest executive authority of the State, constitutes a direct call for physical harm, economic discrimination and social humiliation of the Miyan community, normalising

cruelty and stripping them of their inherent right to live with dignity as guaranteed under the Constitution.

(B) Direction to interfere in the Special Revision (SR) process

Equally alarming are public statements wherein the Hon’ble Chief Minister has stated that he has directed or ordered BJP party workers to file objections during the Special Revision (SR) process, particularly targeting members of the Miyan community, he has also said that the officers should work overtime to make Miyan suffer. This is a grave constitutional impropriety. A constitutionally mandated and quasi-judicial process such as the SR cannot be converted into a partisan or communal exercise at the behest of the Chief Minister. Such statements amount to executive interference, undermine institutional neutrality, and violate the principle of free and fair democratic processes, which form part of the basic structure of the Constitution. But, till now, the Election Commission authorities have not taken cognizance of such illegal interference in the SR exercise by the Assam Chief Minister and BJP workers.

Collectively, these utterances have a chilling effect on the right to life with dignity under Article 21, violate equality before law under Article 14, and erode fraternity, a core constitutional value expressly enshrined in the Preamble. They also strike directly at secularism, which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Violation of Constitutional Oath

Under Article 164(3) of the Constitution, the Chief Minister swears an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and to discharge duties without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. Publicly singling out a religious community for suffering, economic deprivation, heightened scrutiny, and exclusion is fundamentally incompatible with this oath. Such conduct represents not merely political impropriety but a constitutional breach by a constitutional functionary.

Supreme Court Directions on Hate Speech

The brazen hate speech of the Assam Chief Minister is prejudicial to national integration and directly promotes enmity between different groups on grounds of religion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, has categorically directed that where instances of hate speech come to the notice of authorities, the police are duty-bound to register FIRs suo moto, irrespective of the identity or position of the speaker, and that failure to do so would invite contempt of wit Thace dirartinne are hindinn under Artide 141. Where the alleged violator is the

identity or position of the speaker, and that failure to do so would invite contempt of court. These directions are binding under Artide 141. Where the alleged violator is the Chief Minister himself, the ordinary executive machinery becomes structurally compromised, making judicial Intervention indispensable.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India reiterated that any attempt to spread hate speech must be dealt with iron hand. The Supreme Court observed that, “Hate speech cannot be tolerated as it leads to loss of dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members, contributes to disharmony amongst groups, and erodes tolerance and open-mindedness, which is a must for a multi-cultural society committed to the idea of equality. Any attempt to cause alienation or humiliation of the targeted group is a criminal offence and must be dealt with accordingly.”

Secularism as Basic Structure

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution, notably in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen, and Aruna Roy v. Union of India. State power cannot be exercised to privilege or prejudice citizens on the basis of religion, nor can governance be infused with communal considerations. The statements and directions referred to above are plainly inconsistent with these binding constitutional principles.

In these extraordinary circumstances, we respectfully submit that this is a fit case for this Hon’ble Court to exercise its suo moto jurisdiction to:

1. Direct competent authorities to register a case against hate speech, executive interference, and violations of fundamental rights;
2. Protect the dignity, equality, and security of the affected community;
3. Reaffirm that constitutional functionaries are bound by their oath and constitutional discipline; and
4. Uphold public confidence in secular constitutional governance and the rule of law.

The intervention of this Hon’ble Court is crucial not only for the protection of a vulnerable community but also for preserving the constitutional equilibrium between executive power and fundamental rights. Silence or inaction in the face of such open constitutional transgressions risks normalising them and eroding the moral authority of the Constitution itself.

We submit this representation with utmost respect and hope that this Hon’ble Court will consider taking appropriate action in accordance with law.

Yours faithfully,

1. Dr. Hiren Gohain, Scholar and public intellectual
2. Harekrishna Deka, former DGP, Assam and author
3. Thomas Menamparampil, former Archbishop Guwahati
4. Ajit Kumar Bhuyan, Member of Rajya Sabha
5. Dr. Dulal Chandra Goswami, Environmental Scientist
6. D. Salka, retd. IAS
7. Paresh Malakar, Editor-in-Chief, Northeast Now Duball hoswe upall
8. Deepak Goswami, former Deputy Director General, NIC
9. Lakhi Nath Tamuli, retd. IAS
10. Jayanta Borgohain, retd. Deputy General Manager, IOCL
11. Dr. Indrani Dutta, former Director, Omiyo Kumar Das Institute of Social Change and Development
12. Robin Dutta, former Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam
13. Rashmi Goswami, Social Activist
14. Najibuddin Ahmed, retd. Adl. Chief Engineer, PHED.
15. Taufiqur Rahman Borborah

Related:

CJP seeks action against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma and AIMIM’s Tausif Alam for election code violations in Bihar

Divisive rhetoric on Jharkhand campaign trail: CJP files two complaint against 4 speeches by Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma

Himanta Biswa Sarma in latest hate speech blames people of ‘specific religion’ for BJP loss in Nagaland, Meghalaya

The post Suo moto cognisance of repeated hate speech by CM Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma must: Assam’s public intellectuals to Gauhati HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.