Gauhati High Court Issues Notice to Assam CM Over Allegations of Hate Speech

Court Proceedings Against Chief Minister

GUWAHATI, Feb 27: The Gauhati High Court has served a notice to Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma regarding multiple Public Interest Litigations (PILs) that accuse him of making hate speech.

Notices were also directed towards the Central government, the State government, and the Director General of Police (DGP) in relation to three separate petitions.

A division bench, led by Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, reviewed the petitions and scheduled the next hearing for April 21.

According to advocate Santanu Borthakur, who represented one of the petitioners, the respondents are required to respond to the notices before the next hearing date. The court did not issue any additional orders at this time.

Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Chander Uday Singh, and Meenakshi Arora represented the petitioners, while no legal representation was present for the Chief Minister or the government.

Chief Justice Kumar remarked on the statements made by the CM, questioning their coherence and suggesting a divisive tendency in the remarks. He stated, “Let us see what they have to say,” after the petitioners presented statements allegedly made by Sarma.

The court opted not to issue a notice to the BJP at this moment, indicating that this aspect would be reviewed later. This decision followed references made by the petitioners to a controversial video shared on the state BJP's official X account.

When senior advocate Singh requested an interim order to prevent the CM from making similar statements in the future, Chief Justice Kumar responded, “At this stage, let notices be issued first.” He indicated that a normal restraint would be in place while the petition is under consideration.

One of the petitions was submitted by litterateur Hiren Gohain, former DGP Harekrishna Deka, and senior journalist Paresh Malakar on February 24. Additionally, the CPI and CPI(M) filed separate petitions on February 21 regarding the same issue.

Earlier, on February 16, the Supreme Court declined to entertain petitions seeking action against Sarma on similar grounds.

The petitioners claimed that Sarma's remarks could lead to societal division.

According to the petition filed by the three prominent individuals, Sarma allegedly instructed party members to file complaints against Bengali-origin Muslims, whom he referred to derogatorily as ‘Miyas’, with the intent of causing them distress.

The petition further accused the Chief Minister of tarnishing his constitutional office and violating his oath by engaging in overt hate speech against a minority community in Assam.

It also alleged that Sarma's speeches and videos incite violence against this minority group by encouraging civilians to take the law into their own hands.

Moreover, the petition claimed that Sarma has engaged in “blatant hate speech” by calling for social and economic boycotts against the minority community and using derogatory language to describe them, thereby perpetuating harmful stereotypes.

It was also alleged that the CM has instigated violence and hatred through references to the community's dress and language, promoting communal discord, and directing officials to misuse their positions to harass the minority community.

The petitioners are seeking an end to any hate speech by Sarma and his associates, particularly speech that incites civilians to act against a specific minority community in Assam.

Additionally, the PIL calls for an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT), led by a retired high court judge, into the actions of the CM and appropriate measures to be taken.

“In this case, despite the widespread dissemination of speeches that appear to incite discrimination and social and economic boycotts against a minority community, no suo motu FIR has been filed by state authorities,” the petition stated.

“Such ongoing inaction, especially from someone in the highest constitutional office of the state, creates a chilling effect on victims and witnesses, undermines ordinary legal remedies, and fosters a climate of impunity,” it concluded.