The Supreme Court has rejected appeals to file a formal complaint against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for allegedly posting a gun and engaging in hate speech. CJI-led bench says there is no solid reason to get involved directly; instead, approach Gauhati HC.
 |
| The Supreme Court requested the Gauhati High Court Chief Justice to expeditiously list and hear the petitions on alleged hate speeches by Assam CM, if they are filed before the High Court. | Photo Credit: ANI |
The Supreme Court today denied several petitions seeking the filing of formal complaints against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for allegedly engaging in hate speech and a since-deleted social media post, which is a major relief to him. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant led a three-judge panel that decided that there was "no good reason" for the Supreme Court to intervene immediately, instructing the petitioners to instead go to the Gauhati High Court.
In their arguments, petitioners stressed the CM's position of authority, claiming that "he is the boss of Assam" and that state police might not act honestly against him. The panel also included Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra. The court maintained its jurisdictional position in spite of this.
A social media post by Sarma that was later removed and featured an animated illustration of him shooting a gun at two Muslim males was one of the main causes of the pleas. According to petitioners, it led to encouraging hatred between communities in violation of IPC Sections 153A, 295A, and 505 (now matching Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita clauses). A number of the CM's speeches that they claimed were communally heated and intended to divide people before elections were also mentioned.
The sensitivity of the issue in a state like Assam, where communal and demographic tensions are frequently high, was pointed out on multiple occasions by advocates representing the petitioners. They argued that only central intervention could guarantee a fair investigation and that the evidence went against public order and constitutional norms.
CJI Surya Kant, however, remained dissatisfied. During the hearing, he said aloud, "We find no good reason to entertain these petitions at this stage." The bench highlighted the availability of effective remedies at the High Court level as well as the federalism principle. The court essentially prevented direct Supreme Court action for the time being by ordering that the matter be brought before the concerned High Court, which is the proper place.
These kinds of appeals have been made against Sarma previously. Several complaints and Public Interest Litigation (PILs) have accused him of using violent language at public rallies and interviews over the past few years on topics such as illegal immigration, demographic change, land jihad, and love jihad. In order to preserve Assam's indigenous character and fortune, the chief minister has continuously defended his remarks as true observations rather than hate speech.
In particular, the removed gun post went viral last year and was sharply criticized by social media users, opposition parties, and civil society organizations for being reckless coming from a sitting chief minister. Sarma later said that it was not directed at any community and was merely a symbolic reflection of his government's battle on militancy and crime.
With today's decision, the Gauhati High Court has the final say. In order to obtain instructions for FIR registration, investigation, or other reliefs, petitioners may submit new writ petitions there. Legal experts point out that High Courts frequently consider cases under Article 226 where fundamental rights or the public interest are mentioned, although the results vary based on the evidence and the judge's opinion.
The decision also highlights the Supreme Court's increasing sensitivity to consider "SLP jumping" in criminal cases unless there are compelling reasons to do so, such as serious unfairness or a threat to life or liberty. The court has frequently favored letting state system and High Courts handle first-instance scrutiny in politically delicate matters involving chief ministers.
The decision boosts Sarma and the BJP's confidence in Assamese politics ahead of important local body elections and the 2026 Assembly elections. Today's development is expected to be exploited by opposition parties such as Congress and AIUDF, who will accuse the judiciary of protecting the powerful.
Petitioners and civil rights organizations have pledged to forcefully pursue the case at the High Court in the meantime. This step in the process is not the end. Outside the court, one petitioner's lawyer told reporters, "The content was obviously dangerous and divisive."
Any new filings in the Gauhati High Court and political responses will be monitored by REAL BREAKING NEWS. Is this a victory for free expression or a lost opportunity to reduce hate speech? There is still a lot to argue. Check this space for updates.
Post a Comment