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.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta indicated that all matters in the batch would be closed, while explicitly preserving the liberty of parties to pursue other remedies under law. One case alone—Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.—was kept pending, limited to monitoring the progress of trial and allied proceedings arising out of a 2021 alleged hate crime against a Muslim cleric in Noida.

The January 20 hearing was not merely procedural. It functioned as a consolidated reckoning—bringing together nearly every strand of hate-speech litigation that has occupied the Court since 2020, and laying bare the Court’s evolving understanding of its own role, the limits of judicial supervision, and the persistent failures of enforcement.

The Beginning: 2020 and the turn to the Supreme Court

The present batch of cases originated in 2020, at a moment when hate speech entered the Supreme Court not as a marginal criminal issue, but as a structural constitutional concern.

The immediate triggers were:

• The “Corona Jihad” campaign during the COVID-19 pandemic, which communalised disease and cast Muslims as biological and civic threats; and
• Sudarshan TV’s “UPSC Jihad” programme, which alleged a conspiracy by Muslim candidates to infiltrate the civil services.

Petitioners argued that these narratives violated equality, dignity, and fraternity, and that State authorities had either failed to act or were complicit through inaction.

In 2020, the Supreme Court intervened to restrain the telecast of the “UPSC Jihad” programme, marking an early acknowledgment that certain forms of hate speech—especially when amplified through mass media—implicate constitutional values beyond ordinary criminal law.

This was the Court’s first decisive signal that hate speech would not be treated merely as offensive expression, but as conduct capable of restructuring social hierarchies and legitimising exclusion.

Expansion of the Docket: Dharam Sansads and genocidal speech (2021–2022)

The hate-speech docket expanded dramatically in 2021–22, following Dharam Sansad events and religious gatherings where speakers openly called for:

• Violence against Muslims,
• Economic boycotts,
• Armed mobilisation, and
• Genocide.

Petitions by Qurban Ali, Major General S.G. Vombatkere, journalists, civil liberties organisations, and religious bodies highlighted a disturbing pattern:

• Hate speech events were openly announced,
• Police often granted permission or remained passive, and
• FIRs, if registered at all, rarely resulted in arrests or prosecutions.

This phase forced the Court to confront not isolated speeches, but a systemic failure of enforcement.

October 2022: The Court steps in

In October 2022, the Supreme Court issued what remains its most consequential intervention on hate speech.

The Court directed that police authorities must register FIRs suo moto in cases involving:

• Promotion of communal hatred, or
• Offending religious sentiments,

without waiting for a formal complaint. Failure to act, the Court warned, would invite contempt proceedings.

The reasoning was explicit: Hate speech strikes at fraternity, corrodes secularism, and threatens constitutional morality. It cannot be left to the discretion of local authorities who may be unwilling to act.

This order marked the Court’s shift from reactive adjudication to supervisory constitutional enforcement.

2023: Nationwide application and preventive policing

In April 2023, the Supreme Court extended its October 2022 directions to all States and Union Territories, making clear that:

• The obligation to act was nationwide;
• Enforcement must be religion-neutral; and
• Police must act proactively, not defensively.

Throughout 2023, the Court:

• Passed preventive orders ahead of announced rallies,
• Directed videography of events,
• Required status reports on FIRs and investigations,
• Entertained contempt petitions alleging non-compliance.

The Court also began drawing upon its Tehseen Poonawalla (2018) jurisprudence on mob lynching, exploring whether similar preventive, remedial, and punitive frameworks could be adapted to hate speech.

Yet even as directions multiplied, enforcement remained uneven—setting the stage for judicial introspection. Across these six years, the Court was not operating in an evidentiary vacuum. Ground-level documentation repeatedly entered the record, including through material placed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) under its Hate Watch (HW) programme. These compilations drew from verified complaints filed by CJP across multiple States before police authorities, district administrations, minority commissions, and other statutory bodies. The same may be accessed here.

During various hearings, this data—reflecting patterns of non-registration of FIRs, selective enforcement, delayed action, and repeat offending by the same speakers—was intermittently brought to the Court’s attention. The material served a dual function: it both corroborated petitioners’ claims of systemic enforcement failure and demonstrated that hate speech was not episodic, but embedded in everyday administrative practice. While the Court acknowledged these inputs at different stages, their presence underscored a recurring tension in the proceedings: between empirical evidence of ground-level inertia and the Court’s increasing reluctance to continue long-term supervisory engagement.

Recalibration: “We cannot monitor the entire country” (2024–2025)

By late 2024 and 2025, a notable shift occurred.

Benches—including Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta—began articulating concern that the Supreme Court:

• Could not act as a permanent national monitoring authority;
• Could not substitute itself for police stations, magistrates, and High Courts; and
• Would not legislate from the bench in the absence of parliamentary action.

This was not a repudiation of earlier orders, but a recognition of institutional limits: judicial directions had reached their ceiling without corresponding executive will. The trajectory of this batch of litigation—from its inception as a broad constitutional intervention to its present narrowing—mirrors a discernible shift in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence when confronted with complex societal harms. What began as a wide-ranging judicial attempt to frame hate speech as a threat to fraternity, secularism, and constitutional morality gradually contracted into a posture of institutional restraint, marked by repeated assertions of jurisdictional and functional limits.

Over time, the Court’s role evolved from norm-setting and preventive oversight to a more confined emphasis on statutory remedies, executive responsibility, and case-specific adjudication. The impending closure of most petitions reflects not a denial of the harm caused by hate speech, but a judicial recalibration—signalling that the enforcement deficit cannot indefinitely be remedied through continuing mandamus. This recalibration forms the immediate backdrop to the January 20 hearing.

January 20 Hearing: A comprehensive closing of the docket

The January 20 hearing brought together every unresolved dimension of the hate-speech litigation. At the outset, the Bench indicated that it was inclined to:

• Close all connected matters, and
• Leave parties free to pursue statutory and constitutional remedies elsewhere.

The sole exception would be Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, which involved a concrete hate crime and an ongoing criminal process.

Arguments of the petitioners

1. The problem is enforcement, not law: Advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for Qurban Ali, made a central submission:

The crisis is not legal inadequacy, but institutional reluctance—especially when alleged offenders are linked to the ruling establishment.

He argued that:

• Hate speech events are often advertised in advance;
• When the Court previously intervened, events were cancelled or toned down, proving the effectiveness of oversight;
• The same habitual offenders operate across States;
• FIRs are registered but arrests and follow-up are absent, enabling repetition.

Pasha also referred to an application seeking takedown of an AI-generated video, allegedly circulated by the BJP’s Assam unit, portraying Muslims as poised to overtake the State if the party lost elections. He argued that hate speech frequently prefigures hate crime, calling for precisely the acts that later occur.

2. Hate speech as a constitutional tort: Advocate Sharukh Alam, appearing in Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, urged the Court to reject the framing of hate speech as merely a law-and-order problem.

She argued that:

• Hate speech entrenches discrimination and exclusion;
• It should be understood as a constitutional tort, engaging Articles 14, 15, and 21;
• In the Noida case, the Maulana was stripped and assaulted because of his religious identity.

The State of Uttar Pradesh denied the hate-crime characterisation, stating that:

• A chargesheet had been filed,
• Trial was underway, and
• Departmental action had been taken.

The Bench decided to retain this matter alone, limited to monitoring progress.

3. The sanction question: Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, appearing for Brinda Karat, raised a distinct legal issue: Whether prior sanction is required at the FIR stage, a view adopted by a Magistrate and upheld by the Delhi High Court.

Aggarwal argued that:

• Sanction is required only at the cognisance stage, not for FIR registration;
• The issue is pending reference in Manju Surana.

Justice Vikram Nath asked him to submit a brief note, recognising the issue’s doctrinal importance.

4. Media, elections, and civil liberties:

• Senior Advocate M.R. Shamshad (Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind) highlighted the growing targeting of religious personalities, with FIRs refused on erroneous sanction grounds.
• Advocate Amit Pai cited failure to register FIRs even in cases of casteist speech by elected officials.
• Senior Advocate Sanjay Parekh (PUCL) recalled the Court’s earlier reliance on Tehseen Poonawalla, while acknowledging the need for adaptation.
• Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, as amicus curiae, posed a structural question: Can hate speech be meaningfully curbed when social-media and broadcast platforms profit from virality?

State and institutional responses

• ASG S.V. Raju claimed substantial compliance, stating FIRs were registered in most cited cases.
• NBDA sought to be heard, citing self-regulatory guidelines.
• Election Commission, through Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, stated it already had enforcement mechanisms and was open to strengthening them.

The court’s direction

After hearing all parties, the Bench:

• Directed brief written notes within two weeks,
• Reserved orders,
• Ordered closure of all matters except Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani, which will continue on the next date.

Conclusion: What January 20 ultimately signals

From restraining a television programme in 2020, to mandating suo motu FIRs nationwide, to threatening contempt, the Supreme Court spent nearly six years attempting to compel the State to confront hate speech as a constitutional harm.

The January 20 hearing marks an institutional conclusion: the Court has articulated the law; enforcement must now occur elsewhere.

Yet the decision to keep Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani alive—and to seek notes on unresolved legal questions—suggests that the Court has not abandoned the field entirely. It has instead stepped back from continuous supervision, leaving behind a dense jurisprudential trail that future courts, litigants, and lawmakers will have to grapple with.

As matters stand, the Supreme Court has reserved orders, directed the filing of brief notes, and indicated closure of all but one surviving case. Final orders are imminent, and with them, a formal conclusion to one of the Court’s longest-running engagements with hate speech as a constitutional issue. Whether this moment comes to be seen as a principled withdrawal in deference to institutional boundaries—or as a premature retreat from constitutional guardianship—will depend less on the text of the final order, and more on what follows on the ground. Whether this represents constitutional restraint or constitutional retreat is a question that will outlive this batch of cases.

Detailed reports of these matters may be read here and here.

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’

The post Hate Speech Before the Supreme Court: From judicial activism to institutional closure appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The complaint underscores how Shingla’s speech—delivered from the stage of a Hanuman Katha organised by Dayanidhi Dham Seva Sanstha—constituted a deliberate attempt to weaponise religion, gender, and fear to polarise the electorate and vitiate the electoral atmosphere in one of India’s most diverse and politically sensitive cities.

A religious platform turned into a site of electoral polarisation

According to the complaint, the Model Code of Conduct came into effect on December 15, 2025, following the announcement of municipal elections. Despite this, Shingla used a religious congregation to propagate the discredited and incendiary conspiracy theory of “love jihad”, making sweeping allegations against Muslim men and publicly demeaning Muslim women in language that was both communal and gendered.

At the event, she claimed that her organisation or associates had “brought back 2,500 women in Mumbai from Abduls”—a statement that uses a Muslim name as a proxy for criminality and casts interfaith relationships as coercive, conspiratorial, and inherently illegitimate. The complaint notes that such assertions are not only entirely unverified, but mirror a pattern of rhetoric repeatedly rejected by courts and investigating agencies for lacking any factual basis.

Gendered hate speech and the public shaming of Muslim identity

One of the most disturbing aspects of the speech, as highlighted by CJP, was Shingla’s exhortation to the crowd through the slogan: “Be Durga, be Kali, never be a ‘burqewali.’”

The complaint explains that this slogan operates on multiple levels of harm: it pits Hindu religious symbolism against Muslim identity, portrays Muslim women as objects of shame, and urges the rejection—indeed erasure—of Muslim identity in public life. By instrumentalising women’s bodies and choices to advance a communal narrative, the speech amounts to gendered hate speech, intensifying religious hostility through misogyny.

The video of the speech, now widely circulated online and annexed with the complaint, shows Shingla repeatedly mobilising fear and suspicion by invoking religion, gender, and an imagined Muslim threat before a public audience.

Clear and multiple violations of the Model Code of Conduct

CJP’s complaint details how the speech violates core prohibitions under Part I of the Model Code of Conduct, including:

• Appeals to religion to influence voters
• Use of religious platforms and events for political mobilisation
• Statements that promote hatred and aggravate differences between communities
• Campaign practices that corrupt the free and fair electoral environment

Importantly, the complaint stresses that the MCC applies not only to candidates, but also to any individual whose actions are intended to influence the political climate during elections—a principle repeatedly affirmed by the Election Commission in past cases.

Offences under the Representation of the People Act, 1951

Beyond the MCC, the complaint invokes serious statutory violations under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, including:

• Section 123(3): Appeal to religion, through the invocation of Hindu deities in opposition to Muslim identity
• Section 123(3A): Promotion of enmity and hatred between religious communities
• Section 125: Promoting enmity in connection with elections, a penal offence

CJP argues that Shingla’s speech squarely falls within these provisions, as it was delivered during an election period and was designed to reshape political consciousness along religious lines.

Assault on constitutional values of equality, dignity, and secularism

The complaint situates the speech within a broader constitutional framework, warning that such rhetoric strikes at the heart of India’s constitutional order. By collectively stereotyping Muslims, demeaning Muslim women, and legitimising religious exclusion, the speech violates:

• Article 14 (Equality before the law)
• Article 15 (Non-discrimination on religious grounds)
• Article 21 (Right to dignity, particularly of women)
• The secular, egalitarian, and fraternal values enshrined in the Preamble

CJP notes that the Supreme Court has consistently held that inflammatory speech and incitement cannot be shielded by free speech, especially in the electoral context where the stakes involve democratic participation and social peace.

Threat to free and fair elections in a plural city

Mumbai’s religious diversity makes it particularly vulnerable to the consequences of such polarising rhetoric. The complaint warns that speeches like Shingla’s:

• Create fear and mistrust between communities
• Intimidate minority voters and suppress participation
• Normalise communal hostility as a political strategy
• Risk triggering social tension and unrest

Allowing such conduct to go unchecked, CJP argues, would erode the level playing field essential to democratic elections.

Accountability of event organisers

The complaint also flags the role of Dayanidhi Dham Seva Sanstha, the organiser of the Hanuman Katha, for allowing a religious platform to be used for communal mobilisation during the election period. CJP reminds the Election Commission that organisers of religious events cannot abdicate responsibility when their platforms are used to violate electoral norms.

CJP’s demand for immediate and decisive action

In its prayer, CJP has urged the State Election Commission of Maharashtra to:

• Take immediate cognisance of the complaint and video evidence
• Initiate proceedings under the Model Code of Conduct against Kajal Shingla
• Restrain her from making further communal speeches during the election period
• Examine the role of the organising body
• Issue a general advisory reaffirming that religious platforms cannot be used for communal propaganda during elections.

The complete complaint may be read here.

Related:

From Fringe to Framework: How AHP’s hate ecosystem reconfigured law, society, and electoral politics

Communal Dog-Whistles in an Election Season: CJP flags hate speech by BJP’s Ameet Satam to election authorities

From Hate Speech to State Action: How communal vigilantism at Malabar Hill continues unchecked

CJP flags serial inflammatory speeches by Kalicharan Maharaj, seeks urgent action over repeated calls for Muslim exclusion and vigilantism

The post Complaint exposes misuse of religious event to inflame fear and violate electoral norms in Mumbai appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The India Hate Lab (IHL) has documented 1,318 verified in-person hate speech events targeting religious minorities across India in 2025, spanning 21 states, 1 Union Territory, and the National Capital Territory of Delhi. That is nearly four hate speech events every day. Compared to 2024, this reflects a 13% increase, and compared to 2023, a 97% increase from the 668 incidents recorded then.

The findings below have been drawn from India Hate Lab’s 2025 report and it has published key findings.

But the most disturbing insight is not only the rise in numbers. It is the pattern the numbers reveal: hate speech is no longer confined to election campaigns or sudden flashpoints. It is beginning to resemble a routine instrument of mobilisation, used repeatedly across public gatherings—political rallies, religious processions, protest marches, and nationalist events—without consistent institutional consequence.

These are verified public events; the report does not attempt to measure private conversations or all online hate.

IHL’s introduction to the 2025 report makes a crucial point: after the “unprecedented surge” in 2024, 2025 did not mark a correction. It marked consolidation. Hate speech, the report suggests, is now operating as a round-the-clock mechanism for far-right mobilisation—less like a temporary electoral tactic, and more like a continuous mode of governance and street-level politics.

BJP-ruled states remain the main theatre for hate

One of the report’s most striking findings is geographical and political. Of the 1,318 events, 1,164 incidents (88%) occurred in states governed by the BJP, either independently or through coalition partners, as well as in BJP-administered Union Territories. This is a 25% increase from the 931 incidents recorded in BJP-ruled jurisdictions in 2024.

By contrast, the report notes that seven opposition-ruled states recorded 154 hate speech events, a 34% decrease from the 234 incidents documented in those states in 2024.

The concentration is stark. The five highest-reporting jurisdictions were: Uttar Pradesh (266), Maharashtra (193), Madhya Pradesh (172), Uttarakhand (155), and Delhi (76)—together accounting for roughly two-thirds of all incidents.

This is not simply a map of hate; it is a map of political permissiveness, where repeated public incitement appears easier to organise, safer to perform, and harder to penalise.

Muslims are targeted in 98% of events; anti-Christian hate rises sharply

IHL records that 1,289 of the 1,318 events (98%) targeted Muslims—explicitly in 1,156 cases, and alongside Christians in 133 cases. This represents a nearly 12% increase from the 1,147 instances recorded in 2024.

The report also documents a troubling rise in anti-Christian hate speech: 162 incidents (about 12% of all events), reflecting a 41% increase from the 115 anti-Christian incidents recorded in 2024. Of these, Christians were explicitly targeted in 29 cases, and targeted alongside Muslims in 133 cases.

The implication is clear: while anti-Muslim incitement remains the ideological core of this ecosystem, hate against Christians is being normalised more openly and more frequently.

How hate is built: conspiracy ‘jihads’, de–humanisation, and calls to violence

A major portion of hate speech documented in 2025 relied on conspiracy narratives. The report records 656 hate speeches—nearly half—referencing “love jihad,” “land jihad,” “population jihad,” “vote jihad,” and newer variations such as “thook (spit) jihad,” “education jihad,” and “drug jihad.”

These conspiracy frames perform a consistent political function: they translate everyday anxieties into claims of organised minority aggression, and then present majoritarian retaliation—social exclusion, boycott, and violence— as “self-defence.”

The danger is not abstract. IHL records that:

• 308 speeches (23%) contained explicit calls for violence
• 136 speeches contained direct calls to arms
• 120 speeches called for social or economic boycotts (an 8% increase from 2024)
• 276 speeches called for removal or destruction of places of worship, including mosques, shrines, and churches
• 141 speeches used dehumanising language—calling minorities “termites,” “parasites,” “insects,” “pigs,” “mad dogs,” “snake-lings,” “green snakes,” and “bloodthirsty zombies.”

When such language becomes familiar in public life, it does not remain “speech”. It becomes permission—permission to harass, exclude, attack, and deny belonging.

Dangerous speeches: Maharashtra stands out

The report notes that Maharashtra recorded the highest number of “dangerous speeches”—78 incidents, up from 64 in 2024. Nearly 40% of the state’s 193 hate speech events involved explicit calls for violence—the highest proportion recorded for any state.

Among individuals delivering the most dangerous speeches, Maharashtra minister Nitesh Rane is identified as being among the top five actors issuing calls to violence.

This matters because dangerous speech is not merely a measure of “tone”; it reflects an ecosystem where the line between political mobilisation and incitement becomes increasingly thin.

Organisers and actors: a network, not outliers

IHL identifies more than 160 organisations and informal groups as organisers or co-organisers of hate speech events in 2025. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal emerge as the most frequent organisers, linked to 289 events (22%), followed by Antarrashtriya Hindu Parishad (138 events).

The report also identifies the most prolific individual hate-speech actors in 2025:

• Uttarakhand CM Pushkar Singh Dhami: 71 speeches
• Pravin Togadia: 46 speeches
• BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay: 35 speeches

When chief ministers and prominent leaders appear as frequent actors in such datasets, the issue stops being about “fringe” mobilisation. It becomes a question of political signalling, where the top legitimises the bottom, and the bottom operationalises the top.

April spike: processions, backlash rallies, and rapid mobilisation

The report records that April had the highest monthly spike with 158 hate speech events, coinciding with Ram Navami processions and hate rallies organised in response to the Pahalgam terror attack.

In the 16-day period between April 22 and May 7, IHL documented 98 in-person hate speech events, indicating rapid and nationwide anti-Muslim mobilisation.

The pattern is politically significant: a terror incident becomes a trigger not for measured accountability but for public rhetoric, that collapses an entire community into a suspect population.

‘Outsider’ tropes: Rohingya and ‘Bangladeshi infiltrator’ narratives

IHL records 69 hate speech events targeting Rohingya refugees, and 192 speeches invoking the “Bangladeshi infiltrator” trope, frequently used to stigmatise Bengali-origin Muslims as foreigners.

These tropes are effective because they blur the line between citizenship and suspicion, turning identity into a permanent trial—where belonging must be constantly proved and can be constantly denied.

Social media: the multiplier of public hate

A defining feature of 2025 is the speed of amplification. Videos from 1,278 of the 1,318 events were first shared or live-streamed on social media platforms.

The breakdown is telling:

• Facebook: 942 first uploads
• YouTube: 246
• Instagram: 67
• X: 23

This confirms that the “in-person” event is no longer the endpoint. A local gathering becomes national content within minutes—clipped, circulated, and rewarded by engagement. Platform policies against hate speech exist, but the report’s documentation shows how digital impunity persists in practice.

It begins with words—and survives through institutional hesitation

The democratic danger here is not only moral; it is institutional. A society can endure hateful individuals. What it cannot safely endure is predictable public incitement without predictable legal consequence.

When hate speech becomes routine, it creates two realities: one in the Constitution, and one on the streets. The first promises equality and dignity. The second teaches communities to accept humiliation, exclusion, and vulnerability as ordinary facts of life.

The IHL report does not ask whether hate exists. It records what happens when hate is allowed to become ordinary—and how quickly the ordinary can become dangerous.

If hate speech has become routine, the response must become routine too: prompt FIRs where applicable, platform enforcement, and transparent public accountability.

The report may be read here.

(The author is a lawyer and Constitutional Law Researcher based in New Delhi)

Related:

Rituals of Fear, Politics of Hate: How AHP’s national network rewrote the boundaries of democracy and citizenship

Free Speech in India 2025: What the Free Speech Collective report reveals about a year of silencing

The ‘Shastra Poojan’ Project: How the ritual of weapon worship is being recast as a tool of power and hate propaganda

The post Sharp spike in hate, minorities the target, hate is new normal: India Hate Lab Report 2025 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The complaint arises from a speech delivered by Satam on December 6, 2025, during the public inauguration of a BJP office in Ward No. 47, Malad West, at a time when the Model Code of Conduct was in force owing to the ongoing Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) electoral process. The speech, widely circulated through video footage online, deploys familiar yet deeply dangerous communal tropes—branding Muslims as “jihadis,” accusing them of facilitating illegal immigration, and invoking conspiracy theories such as “vote jihad” and “land jihad.”

From political speech to communal vilification

CJP’s complaint makes it clear that the impugned speech goes far beyond permissible political criticism. Satam is seen alleging that “jihadis” have infiltrated the Goregaon Sports Club, accusing Muslims of aiding Rohingya and Bangladeshi migrants in illegally acquiring land and identity documents, and suggesting that demographic changes driven by Muslim presence pose a threat to governance and society.

These remarks, delivered at a public political event and amplified through digital circulation, effectively criminalise an entire religious community, casting Muslim citizens as infiltrators, conspirators, and demographic threats. The language used is not incidental—it is part of a growing repertoire of coded hate speech, designed to mobilise voters through fear, suspicion, and hostility towards a minority community.

CJP has annexed the video footage of the speech as evidence, underscoring that these are not stray remarks but verifiable, deliberate public statements made in an electoral context.

Clear violations of the Model Code of Conduct

The complaint highlights that the Model Code of Conduct explicitly bars political actors from making appeals to communal feelings, aggravating differences between religious communities, or using unverified allegations that vitiate the electoral atmosphere. Satam’s remarks, CJP argues, strike at the very heart of these prohibitions.

By invoking Muslims as a collective threat and framing them as agents of demographic and electoral subversion, the speech seeks to polarise the electorate along religious lines—a practice the Election Commission has repeatedly condemned, including in cases involving indirect or “dog-whistle” appeals.

Statutory breaches under the Representation of the People Act

CJP further points out that the speech attracts multiple violations under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. These include:

• Section 123(3), which prohibits appeals based on religion—violated here through indirect but unmistakable religious mobilisation
• Section 123(3A), which bars the promotion of hatred or enmity between communities
• Section 125, a penal provision that criminalises the promotion of enmity in connection with elections.

The complaint draws strength from the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017), which unequivocally held that any direct or indirect appeal to religion corrodes the foundations of secular democracy.

An assault on constitutional values

Beyond electoral law, CJP situates the speech within the broader constitutional framework. The remarks, it argues, violate Article 14 (equality before law), Article 15 (non-discrimination), and Article 21 (right to dignity), while abusing the protection of free speech under Article 19(1)(a)—a right that does not extend to hate speech.

At stake is not merely legal compliance, but the constitutional promise of secularism, fraternity, and equal citizenship, values explicitly enshrined in the Preamble.

Why This Matters: Electoral integrity and minority rights

Malad West and its surrounding areas are religiously diverse. In such contexts, speeches that frame minorities as conspirators or infiltrators carry real consequences: voter intimidation, communal polarisation, and erosion of public trust in free and fair elections.

CJP warns that allowing such rhetoric to pass without consequence lowers the threshold of acceptable political discourse and emboldens further communal targeting—turning elections into arenas of fear rather than democratic choice.

CJP’s call for urgent action

In its prayer, CJP urges the Election Commission to take immediate cognisance of the complaint, initiate proceedings against Ameet Satam for MCC violations, issue a show-cause notice, impose appropriate sanctions, and direct law enforcement authorities to examine penal liability under the RPA. Importantly, CJP also calls for a general advisory to political parties, cautioning against the use of conspiracy-laden communal narratives like “vote jihad” and “land jihad.”

The complete complaint may be read here.

Related:

CJP flags serial inflammatory speeches by Kalicharan Maharaj, seeks urgent action over repeated calls for Muslim exclusion and vigilantism

NBDSA pulls up Times Now Navbharat for communal, agenda-driven broadcast on ‘Miya Bihu’; orders removal of inflammatory content

CJP files complaint with ECI against Arunachal Minister Ojing Tasing for threatening voters with denial of welfare schemes

CJP moves NCM against surge in Hate Speech at Hindu Sanatan Ekta Padyatra

CJP files complaint over Malabar Hill incident involving Aadhaar checks and targeting of Muslim vendors

The post CJP approaches Election Commission over communal and hate-based speech by BJP Mumbai President appeared first on SabrangIndia.

CJP’s complaint is not an isolated intervention. It situates the latest instances within a longer history of complaints, FIRs, and prior representations against the same individual, including a detailed complaint submitted in August 2024. Despite this record, Kalicharan Maharaj has continued to occupy prominent public platforms—often at religious or media-sponsored events—where his rhetoric has grown increasingly explicit and dangerous, underscoring what CJP describes as a systemic failure of deterrence.

Previous complaints sent may be read here, here and here.

A pattern of escalation

The complaint centres on three specific public events. The most striking took place on January 8, 2025, at the “Rising Madhya Pradesh” event organised by News18 in Bhopal. From a widely publicised stage, Kalicharan Maharaj openly called for the exclusion of Muslim vendors from the Kumbh Mela, promoted fabricated conspiracies such as “spit jihad” and “urine jihad,” claimed that Muslims do not belong in India, and portrayed Muslim population growth as a form of violence against Hindus. He further accused Muslims of plotting to destroy the Ram Mandir and invoked the conspiracy of “Ghazwa-e-Hind,” casting Indian Muslims as internal enemies engaged in civilisational warfare.

CJP emphasises that this was not coded or metaphorical speech. The language was categorical and absolutist, denying Muslims any legitimate claim to equal citizenship and encouraging their removal from shared civic and economic spaces.

Earlier, on December 8, 2024, at a Shri Devi Bhagwat Katha in Nallasopara, Maharashtra, Kalicharan Maharaj advanced a series of demonstrably false claims—asserting, among other things, that 40,000 Hindu women fall victim to “love jihad” every day, that 100,000 temples were destroyed by invaders, and that 100,000 cows are slaughtered daily. According to CJP, these fabricated figures were presented as facts with the clear intent of generating fear, anger, and hostility towards Muslims.

At a Ganesh Janmotsav event in Pune on October 25, 2024, he warned that Muslims intended to turn India into a Sharia nation within 15 years, engaged in demographic alarmism, and explicitly legitimised cow vigilantism—suggesting that extra-legal action by private individuals was justified and even necessary.

Why this is hate speech in law—not opinion

CJP’s complaint draws a clear legal and constitutional distinction between protected speech and punishable hate speech. It argues that the speeches in question attribute collective guilt to an entire religious community, deny Muslims their right to belong to the nation, portray them as conspirators and existential threats, and actively advocate exclusion from public spaces and livelihoods. The repeated endorsement of conspiracies such as love jihad, demographic warfare, and Ghazwa-e-Hind, CJP contends, demonstrates ideological consistency and intent rather than isolated exaggeration or rhetorical excess.

The complaint further stresses that such speech does not need to contain an explicit call to violence to be dangerous. By legitimising vigilantism and repeatedly suggesting that State institutions are inadequate or complicit, the rhetoric creates an enabling environment where discrimination and violence become socially acceptable.

Threats to public order and constitutional fraternity

Beyond individual culpability, CJP situates the issue within a broader constitutional crisis. The complaint warns that sustained hate speech of this nature manufactures social panic, normalises discrimination, and places religious minorities at heightened risk. Calls to exclude Muslims from religious congregations or marketplaces, when made from public stages and circulated widely online, transform prejudice into an actionable social programme.

CJP also highlights the exponential amplification of harm through digital circulation. Videos of the speeches have been widely shared on social media, extending their reach far beyond the physical audience and intensifying fear and vulnerability among minority communities across regions.

Most critically, the organisation argues that such rhetoric strikes at the heart of the constitutional value of fraternity enshrined in the Preamble. By repeatedly asserting that Muslims do not belong in India, the speeches seek to convert citizenship from a constitutional guarantee into a conditional status—contingent on religious conformity.

Legal violations and state accountability

The complaint identifies multiple cognisable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including provisions relating to promoting enmity between religious groups, imputations prejudicial to national integration, criminal intimidation, intentional insult, and statements likely to cause public alarm. The repetition of such speeches across time and locations, CJP notes, aggravates criminal liability and establishes a continuing course of conduct.

Invoking binding Supreme Court directions, CJP underscores that police authorities are constitutionally obligated to act suo-motu against hate speech, irrespective of the speaker’s social or political standing. Inaction, the complaint argues, amounts to dereliction of constitutional duty and signals institutional acquiescence.

A call for urgent and visible action

CJP’s intervention is, at its core, a warning against the normalisation of hate speech in public life. Allowing serial hate speakers to repeatedly occupy prominent platforms without consequence, the organisation cautions, lowers the threshold of acceptable discourse and erodes public confidence in the neutrality of State institutions.

Calling for prompt, transparent, and legally grounded action, CJP stresses that this is not merely about one individual, but about safeguarding constitutional secularism, equality before law, and fraternity itself. Failure to act decisively now, it warns, will only deepen impunity and further entrench communal hatred in India’s public sphere.

The complete complaint may be read here.

Related:

NBDSA pulls up Times Now Navbharat for communal, agenda-driven broadcast on ‘Miya Bihu’; orders removal of inflammatory content

CJP files complaint with ECI against Arunachal Minister Ojing Tasing for threatening voters with denial of welfare schemes

CJP moves NCM against surge in Hate Speech at Hindu Sanatan Ekta Padyatra

CJP files complaint over Malabar Hill incident involving Aadhaar checks and targeting of Muslim vendors

The post From Media Stages to Religious Gatherings: CJP moves NCM against Kalicharan Maharaj appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The complaint highlights how the padyatra—led by Dhirendra Krishna Shastri of Bageshwar Dham and traversing 422 village panchayats—was framed as a campaign for “Hindu unification” and the creation of a “Hindu Rashtra,” while repeatedly othering non-Hindu communities, especially Muslims, through charged rhetoric. CJP notes that these speeches did not remain confined to religious or cultural expression but crossed into fearmongering, exclusion, conspiracy theories, and open provocation, creating an environment ripe for hostility and public disorder.

Escalation of Hate Rhetoric across States

The complaint presents a chronological mapping of the speeches and categorises them into direct hate speech, exclusionary hate speech, and fearmongering, with further indicators like economic boycotts, conspiracy theories, and threats of vigilante violence.

In Ghaziabad, the yatra began with explicit demographic fearmongering—claims of Hindus supposedly “declining” and standing on the “brink of becoming minorities.” Statements insinuating that communities associated with “chadar” and “father” should decrease in number were highlighted as clear exclusionary attacks. The recurring invocation of “love jihad” further entrenched conspiracy theories weaponised against Muslims.

At the next major stop in Delhi, the rhetoric intensified. One speaker warned that in twenty years Hindus would be fighting for their very existence, and accused Muslims and Christians of adopting “foreign identities.” The praise of “bulldozer justice” and insinuations that Muslims would seize Hindu property were documented as statements bordering on direct incitement.

In Faridabad, a communal rhyme—“tel lagao Dabur ka, naam mita do Babur ka”—was used to evoke historical resentment, while the line “Jo Ram ka nahi wo kisi kaam ka nahi” blatantly ostracised minorities. A later Faridabad event referred to fears of India turning into “Bangladesh,” invoking imagery of dispossession and persecution to generate panic.

In Palwal, speeches openly demanded daily commitment to building a Hindu Rashtra and framed all conversions to Islam or Christianity as inherently “illegal,” merging conspiracy with ideological exclusion. Another speaker urged audiences to “buy from Hindus, employ only Hindus,” amounting to an explicit call for an economic boycott of Muslims.

The complaint documents how, on November 12, Dhirendra Shastri made sweeping insinuations that “only Non-Hindus are terrorists,” blamed madrassas for producing extremism, and warned of “bomb blasts in every street” if Hindus did not unite. CJP flags this as a combination of direct hate speech, fearmongering, and misinformation designed to criminalise an entire community.

In Banchari, speakers told people who disagreed with Vande Mataram or the worship of Ram to “go to Pakistan or Afghanistan,” directly equating religious identity with foreignness. References to Kashmiri Pandit displacement were used to justify the idea that Hindus could soon be driven from their homes.

At Chhatarpur, the rhetoric leaned on mockery and conditional belonging, suggesting that those who refuse to chant Vande Mataram should “book a ticket to Lahore.” Proposals for DNA testing of those who disagree with Hindu practices added an additional layer of derision and pseudo-scientific exclusion.

The speech in Mathura invoked the violent mobilisation of the Babri Masjid demolition and called for reclaiming the Shahi Idgah Mosque, evoking historical tensions and encouraging crowds toward aggressive action.

Legal Implications Outlined in the Complaint

CJP’s complaint does not merely document hate speech but sets out the legal provisions under which the incidents fall.

The organisation notes violations of:

• Article 14 (equality before law), due to calls for segregation and economic exclusion
• Article 15 (non-discrimination), owing to open appeals to religious discrimination
• Article 19(1)(a) read with 19(2), as the speeches constitute incitement and threats to public order
• Article 25, by delegitimising and attacking the religious practices of minorities

The complaint also lists specific offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023:

• Section 196 – promoting enmity between groups
• Section 197 – assertions prejudicial to national integration
• Section 299 – deliberate insult intended to outrage religious feelings
• Section 352 – intentional insult likely to provoke breach of peace
• Section 353 – statements causing public fear, alarm, or inciting communities

The organisation further references the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on hate speech, including Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan, Shreya Singhal, Amish Devgan, and the Tehseen Poonawalla lynching guidelines, to underline the constitutional and judicial standards violated during the padyatra.

A section of the complaint underscores the “extremity of speech,” the authority wielded by speakers like Dhirendra Shastri and Devkinandan Thakur, and the massive audience sizes—factors that amplify the potential for mobilisation, disorder, and violence.

CJP alerts NCM on the situation

One of the most urgent concerns raised by CJP is the scale and influence of the padyatra. With an estimated 3,00,000 participants, celebrity spiritual leaders with millions of followers, and openly majoritarian slogans gaining traction, the organisation warns that unchecked hate campaigns could lead to real-world violence, as seen in Dhutia, Madhya Pradesh, where a crowd attempted to burn Shastri’s effigy and the situation escalated into a police lathi charge.

The complaint emphasises that this is not a communal dispute, but a “systematic campaign of hate speech meant to serve political purposes” and capable of triggering targeted violence against vulnerable groups.

Prayers before the NCM

CJP has requested the NCM to:

• Take cognisance of the complaint under Section 9(1)(d) of the NCM Act
• Initiate a fact-finding mission on the padyatra
• Direct administrations to monitor rallies, record speeches, and ensure safeguards
• Protect targeted communities through nodal officers per Tehseen Poonawalla guidelines
• Ensure immediate FIRs for hate speech
• Recommend strong social media regulation to curb the circulation of hateful content

Reiterating that the complaint is not against any religion or religious exercise, CJP concludes that the issue at hand concerns the rule of law and the constitutional guarantee of equal citizenship, now under strain due to repeated, organised calls for a religious nationhood project.

The Complaint may be read here:

Image Courtesy: tv9hindi.com

Related

Sanatan Ekta Padyatra – Unmasking the March of Majoritarianism

Targeted as ‘Bangladeshis’: The hate speech fuelling deportations

Words that Divide: BJP MP’s Bhagalpur speech targets Muslims, CJP files MCC complaint claiming violation of election laws

CJP files complaints against the Hate Speeches delivered in Uttar Pradesh

The post CJP Files complaint with NCM over escalating Hate Speeches during Hindu Sanatan Ekta Padyatra appeared first on SabrangIndia.