The Supreme Court on Monday expressed strong reservations while declining petitions that sought registration of a police case and a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over alleged hate speech. A Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, advised the petitioners to first approach the Gauhati High Court. The court also voiced concern over an increasing tendency to move the apex court directly, particularly in the run-up to elections. Assam is expected to hold Assembly polls in March or April. The petitions stemmed from a video released by the BJP’s Assam unit that allegedly showed the Chief Minister firing at a photograph depicting Muslims. They also referred to his remarks about “Miyas” — a term used for Bengali-speaking Muslims, whom the BJP has previously described as illegal infiltrators. While addressing these issues, the Bench urged political parties to exercise restraint and adhere to constitutional values. It observed that approaching the Supreme Court directly before elections appeared to be becoming a pattern.
The petitioners argued that they had written to the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court but no suo motu action followed. The Supreme Court clarified that sending a letter does not amount to formally filing a petition and reiterated that the High Court must be approached first. Chief Justice Kant cautioned against undermining High Courts, stating that bypassing them weakens judicial institutions. Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the Supreme Court could exercise its discretionary powers in the matter and emphasised the demand for an SIT investigation. Responding to the court’s remarks, he argued that the Chief Minister’s conduct was eroding constitutional values and affecting an entire community.
Singhvi further maintained that the case involved violations of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. He questioned whether an SIT could function independently in Assam and urged the court to consider its powers under Article 32, which allows citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. He also claimed that similar matters had previously been transferred to other High Courts. The Bench, however, remained firm. Chief Justice Kant stated that the Supreme Court cannot become a “forum of convenience” merely because senior lawyers are based in Delhi. He rejected suggestions of transferring the matter to another High Court, calling such a move an unwarranted aspersion on the Gauhati High Court and emphasising the need to preserve judicial administration across the country. Earlier, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind had also filed a plea in the Supreme Court over the Chief Minister’s remarks on “Miyas.” The petition, filed by its president Maulana Mahmood Madani, argued that the term is derogatory toward Muslims and that statements of this nature, when made by a person holding high constitutional office, cannot be dismissed as mere political rhetoric or protected free speech.