Jamiat Flags Assam CM's Speech On 'Miyas', Seeks Supreme Court Directions To Regulate Comments By Constitutional Office Holders

Citing the recent speeches made by the Chief Minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma, Islamic clerics' group Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind has urged Supreme Court to issue directions to restrain persons holding Constitutional posts from making divisive comments.

In the written submission filed in the petition filed by Jamiat in 2021 seeking directions to regulate hate speeches, Jamiat referred to the speech made by Sarma, on January 27, that "four to five lakh Miya voters would be removed" after the Special Revision Exercise in Assam. According to Jamiat, Miya is a derogatory term to address Muslims in Assam.

The petitioner said that it was not the solitary instance of the Assam CM making such speeches.

The harm caused by hate speech, or by speech intended to instigate, malign, demonise, or vilify a section of citizens or a community, runs directly counter to the constitutional guarantees assured to all citizens. It has been said that such terms at first glance, may appear to have been used in general parlance, but the Courts are required to analyse them in the context in which they have been used.

"Considering the recent speech delivered on 27.01.2026 in Assam by a person a constitutional position (as stated above), this Hon'ble Court must consider some regulatory guidelines to keep a check on persons holding constitutional positions, delivering speeches which are communal in nature targeting/vilifying/demonizing communities by giving speech which in a given context of the speaker 'primarily carries no other meaning other than hatred, hostility and ill will'. This collective to ensure that nobody is above the constitutional norms shall ensure the basics of Rule of law."

It has been emphasised that often, such expressions function as forms of prejudicial discourse, communal stereotyping, and exclusionary rhetoric, which result in generating stigmatising and polarising narratives.

It further said that other persons holding constitutional posts are also making such comments to communally target certain groups.

"There are various other speeches or statements given in public by different people, many of them constitutional position within the system make intentionally derogatory and inflammatory statements and speeches by giving a context which, one can understand clearly that they are targeted to a community or a section of persons. These are, in the context they are spoken, are in the nature of hate speech.

To be more specific, apart from denigrating the religious tenets of communities, dominant public voices are frequently found branding a section of citizens; predominantly Muslims, as "jallad", "ghuspaithiya"(infiltrators), "anti-nationals" , "jihadis," "mullahs", "ghaddar (traitors), "atankis" (terrorists), "sleeper cells", "stone-pelters", "mian", "katua", and similar expressions," as averred.

In this context, the petitioner urged the Supreme Court to issue some regulatory guidelines to keep a check on persons holding constitutional positions from delivering speeches which are communal in nature, targeting or vilifying communities.

While statutory provisions such as Sections 196, 197, 298, 299 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita address hate speech, the submissions highlighted that “disguised hate speech” often escapes action due to wide and arbitrary discretion exercised by law enforcement agencies.

The plea stressed that the petitions raise issues directly linked to constitutional values of secularism, equality, fraternity and dignity, which must be enforced through the rule of law.

Rise in hate speech against minorities

Relying on data from the India Hate Lab Report, the submissions noted a 74 percent rise in hate speech incidents in 2024 compared to 2023, with nearly 98 percent of such incidents targeting Muslims, either alone or alongside Christians. It was pointed out that an average of three hate speech events occurred per day, many involving explicit calls for violence or destruction of places of worship, with the overwhelming majority being publicly broadcast or live-streamed on social media platforms.

The petitioners argued that this surge has coincided with a worrying increase in hate crimes against religious minorities.

The petitioners relied on a series of landmark judgments including Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan, Kaushal Kishore, Tehseen Poonawalla and Prakash Singh to contend that hate speech enjoys no protection under Article 19 and directly infringes Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The submissions reiterated that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution and that acts of the State which subvert it may amount to unconstitutional governance.

Police “Pick And Choose”  

A central grievance raised was the alleged discriminatory enforcement of law, with police authorities selectively registering FIRs in hate speech cases while refusing or delaying action in complaints filed by minorities.

The petitioners argued that while the legal framework is largely adequate, its failure lies in arbitrary administration, lack of accountability and unchecked discretion, leading to violations of Article 14.

Invoking the Court's powers under Article 142, the petitioners urged the laying down of binding guidelines to ensure uniform enforcement of hate speech laws. Among the suggestions made were:

• Mandatory registration of FIRs in hate speech cases in line with Lalita Kumari judgment.
• Creation of online portals for lodging hate speech complaints
• A fixed timeline of five days for either registering or rejecting complaints
• Contempt and disciplinary proceedings against defaulting officers
• Recording non-compliance in officers' Annual Performance Appraisal Reports

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, on January 20, reserved judgment on the petition filed by Jamiat as well as other petitioners seeking measures against hate crimes.  

Senior Advocate MR Shamshad appeared for Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind. The petition has been filed by Advocate Farrukh Rasheed.