Supreme Court Asks Petitioners Seeking Hate Speech FIR Against Assam CM To Approach High Court, Requests HC To Expedite Hearing

The Supreme Court on Monday asked petitioners, who approached it under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking action against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for offences related to hate speech, to approach the Gauhati High Court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi expressed reluctance to invoke Article 32, and said that the petitioners should first approach the jurisdictional High Courts.

The Chief Justice expressed strong disapproval of the trend of parties directly approaching the Supreme Court, bypassing the High Courts. 

While disposing of the matters, the bench requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to grant an expeditious hearing to the petitioners.

"All these issues can be effectively adjudicated by the jurisdictional High Court. We see no reason to entertain this here, and thus we relegate the petitioners to the jurisdictional High Court. We request the High Court Chief Justice to expeditious hearing," the bench observed in the order.

Court becomes political ground when elections appraoch: CJI

At the outset, the CJI said, "Wherever the elections come, this Court becomes a political battleground." It may be recalled that when the petitions filed by the Communist parties were mentioned last week for urgent listing, a similar comment was made by the CJI then as well.

CJI Surya Kant also appealed to the political parties to fight elections based on "mutual respect and self-restraint."

When the bench expressed reluctance to invoke Article 32,  Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for some of the petitioners, submitted that it was not just a matter relating to commission of offences but also involved the violation of the oath of office. Singhvi asserted that this was the most fit case for invoking Article 32. He said that the High Court may not be an appropriate remedy, as the petitioners are seeking SIT investigation against the Chief Minister of Assam.

"Don't undermine the authority of the High Courts," CJI Kant said. "It has become a trend now that every matter lands up in the Supreme Court. Don't demoralise the High Court judges," CJI said.

Singhvi however pressed that this case required the intervention under Article 32. He attempted to cite some comments made by Sarma, and described him as a "habitual offender." "If the constitutional and social fabric of this country is threatened, shouldn't 32 be invoked? He is brazenly speaking against one entire community," Singhvi said. He said that he has cited 17 cases where the Supreme Court has directly entertained matters in "lesser matters."

CJI Kant asked why the reliefs sought by the petitioners can't be granted by the Gauhat High Court. Singhvi then said that the petitioners be allowed to approach a High Court other than the one in Assam. This submission displeased the CJI, who said, "This is very unfortunate submission, I outrightly reject this."

"We have to deal with our own arrears. Entire effort is to demoralize HC. There's very calculated move to undermine High Courts," CJI said. Singhvi said that Sarma was "demoralising the constitutional ethos of the country, and there was no FIR against him."

Singhvi said that Sarma has given objectionable statements not just in Assam, but in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, and hence it was a pan-Indian case. CJI Kant reiterated that the High Court can address the situation.

"We are only objecting to the short-cut method, only because the Supreme Court matter will come in media in social media...respect the High Court, have faith in the system," CJI Kant said.

"We are absolutely confident that the High Court will deal with the matter in accordance with the principles..," CJI added.

Advocate Nizam Pasha, for petitioners, submitted that the High Court may have to constitute an SIT with officers outside Assam. CJI said that the High Court can also pass such an order, and recalled that as a High Court Judge, he had passed a similar direction.

"Go through the channel, trust the High Court, approach them," CJI said.

Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, appearing for four Assamese individuals, submitted that they had written a letter to the Gauhati High Court Chief Justice seeking a suo motu intervention, but no action ensued. The CJI said that writing a letter and filing a petition were different.

After the order was dictated, Singh requested the bench to make some general comments on the need for restraint by constitutional functionaries. CJI however declined, saying, "We can't comment as we have taken the view that this should go to HC. Have some system which is in built, let's respect the system that constitutional framework provides."

The bench was dealing with 3 petitions - two filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Annie Raja, a leader of the Communist Party of India (CPI), and a third filed by 4 Assamese individuals.

The CPI(M) and Annie Raja sought action against Sarma over his 'point blank' video and other previous speeches. They also sought the constitution of an SIT, contending that the State and the Central agencies can't be expected to carry out the probe impartially.

It may be recalled that recently, a video was posted on 'X' by the official handle of BJP Assam showing the Assam CM shooting persons who appeared to belong to the Muslim community. After the video attracted severe backlash from social media users, it was deleted.

The petition filed by 4 Assamese individuals sought the Court's urgent intervention over a series of alleged hate speeches by Sarma targeting the Muslim community in Assam. It claimed that he used expressions such as “Miya” and “Bangladeshi”, described in the plea as derogatory slurs against Bengali-origin Muslims in Assam, and called for social and economic boycott of the community.

The 4 Assamese individuals were - Dr Hiren Gohain, a retired professor and public intellectual; Harekrishna Deka, former Director General of Police of Assam; Paresh Chandra Malakar, Editor-in-Chiefs of Northeast Now; and senior advocate Santanu Borthakur. They contended that the Chief Minister has repeatedly made statements that incite discrimination, social and economic boycott and violence against Bengali-origin Muslims in Assam.

In related news, another similar petition has been filed by 12 persons, flagging the utterances of the Assam CM, including his comments on 'Miya Muslims', 'flood jihad' etc, and seeking directions to prevent divisive comments by persons holding Constitutional posts. Recently, the Islamic clerics' group Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind also flagged CM Sarma's speech and urged the Supreme Court to issue directions to restrain persons holding Constitutional posts from making divisive comments.

Case Details: ANNIE RAJA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS | W.P.(Crl.) No. 72/2026 (and connected cases)