"Ex Facie Hate Speech": CPI(M) Approaches Supreme Court Alleging Instigation Of Hostility Against Muslims By Assam CM Himanta Sarma

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday agreed to consider listing petitions filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) seeking urgent legal action against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.

A petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed seeking urgent and immediate intervention of the Court to take cognizance of a sustained pattern of hate speeches delivered by Himanta Biswa Sarma, which target, terrorise, and instigate hostility and overt violence against the Muslim community residing in the State of Assam

The bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice N.V. Anjaria agreed to list the matters after Advocate Nizam Pasha mentioned the matter before the Court.

"We seek urgent intervention of this court with respect to disturbing speeches made by the sitting CM of Assam, including a recent video posted where he is shown as shooting at members of a particular community," Pasha submitted.

He further noted that while formal complaints have been filed, no First Information Reports (FIRs) have been registered to date.

In response, Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked, "The problem is, as soon as elections come, part of the election is fought in the Supreme Court. That is the problem. We will find out and will give a date".

The Petition, filed by AOR Lzafeer Ahmad B F, says, "Since assuming office, Respondent No. 4(Sarma) has, on numerous occasions, delivered public speeches and made statements—both within and beyond the territorial limits of the State—which have been widely disseminated across print, electronic, and digital media platforms. These statements, viewed cumulatively, constitute ex facie hate speech inasmuch as they degrade and demean a minority, propagate false and stigmatising stereotypes, incite social and economic boycott, and encourage conditions of exclusion and violence against the said community. The gravity of such statements is further aggravated by the fact that they are made by Respondent No. 4, who occupies the position of the head of the elected constitutional government of a State, thereby carrying the imprimatur and authority of a constitutional office."

It also says, "Most recently—and in perhaps the most blatant and disturbing manifestation of the impugned pattern complained of in the present Petition—there has circulated in the public domain a video, posted on February 7, 2026, from the official handle of the Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”), Assam on X (formerly Twitter), namely, ‘BJP Assam Pradesh’ (@BJP4Assam) and thereafter widely disseminated, depicting Respondent No. 4 discharging a firearm toward an animated image of two visibly Muslim men positioned within the crosshairs of the weapon, following which their photograph is shown as being struck by successive gunshots. The video is accompanied by, and in parts overlaid with, textual phrases such as “Point blank shot” and “No Mercy”."

It is submitted in the plea that the impugned conduct is in blatant derogation of the oath of office taken by Sarma under the Constitution of India. It is apposite to mention in this context that following national deliberations undertaken to combat communalism, regionalism, and divisive tendencies, and on the strength of the recommendations of the National Integration Conference, the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 was enacted, amending Articles 84 and 173 of the Constitution and the Forms of Oath in the Third Schedule to expressly mandate that Ministers and other constitutional functionaries swear to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India. Simultaneously, the same expression was incorporated as a ground of reasonable restriction in Articles 19(2), 19(3) and 19(4) of the Constitution, it adds.

"As is evident from the screenshots reproduced above, the final frames in the aforesaid sequence culminate in a stylised portrait of Respondent No. 4 depicted in cowboy attire, accompanied by additional textual slogans translating to “Foreigner-free Assam”, “Community, land, roots first”, “Why did you go to Pakistan”, and “No forgiveness for Bangladeshis”. When viewed in its surrounding factual and political context, the cumulative symbolic and visual rhetoric embodied in the said material—more fully set out in Annexure P-26 to the present Writ Petition—serves to reinforce and amplify a climate of hostility, exclusion, and intimidation directed against the minority community. It is pertinent to note that following severe backlash over this video, it was removed from the official handle of BJP’s State Unit; nevertheless, the material continues to be widely circulated and disseminated through multiple other accounts and platforms", the plea says.

It is alleged that Sarma's repeated utterances, made while holding constitutional office and having the effect of fuelling communal hostility and encouraging the social and economic boycott and exclusion of a minority community, constitute a classic case of misfeasance in public office, being a malicious and deliberate abuse of constitutional power causing injury to a defined class of citizens. Petitioner submits that such conduct also squarely attracts criminal liability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), particularly under Sections 196, 197, 299, 353—corresponding to erstwhile Sections 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”)—as well as electoral offences under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (“1951 Act”).

The Plea also refers to a speech by Sarma, which says, “My idea is create an atmosphere in which they cannot stay in Assam. Don’t give them land, don’t give them vehicles, don’t give them rickshaws, don’t give them thelas. Then, the Bangladeshis will leave themselves…And those who are still inside, create such a system that they are unable to stay inside. This is called civil disobedience of Mahatma Gandhi, non-cooperation. Mahatma Gandhi taught us two things: non-cooperation and civil disobedience. When the Assamese people do non-cooperation and civil disobedience, then they will go away by themselves. Before getting on a rickshaw, think about whose rickshaw you are getting on.”

The Petitioner also alleges that Sarma, in another speech, amplified the same call for social and economic exclusion in language that leaves little ambiguity as to its intended effect, as reproduced hereunder, “Whoever can give trouble in any way should give, including you. In a rickshaw, if the fare is Rs 5, give them Rs 4. Only if they face troubles will they leave Assam… These are not issues. Himanta Biswa Sarma and the BJP are directly against Miyas. What is the point of telling us that these are issues? We are saying it openly; we are not hiding it. Earlier, people were scared; now I myself am encouraging people to keep giving troubles. If you don’t trouble them, yesterday I found that they have even reached Duliajan (a town in Eastern Assam). So you all should also trouble, and you should not do news that sympathise with them. There will be love jihad in your own house.”

"Such statements, emanating from the highest executive authority in the State, possess a direct and foreseeable consequence of legitimising collective boycott, systemic discrimination, and communal hostility and even violence against any person or group otherwise entitled to equal protection of law under the Constitution", the Petitioner says.

The Petitioner prays, "Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the registration of First Information Reports and the initiation of investigation under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and other applicable laws, in respect of the impugned acts and speeches attributed to Respondent No. 4;...Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction ensuring that an independent, credible, and impartial investigation into the incidents of hate speech set out hereinabove, particularly those targeting the Muslim community, is conducted through a Special Investigation Team or to such other independent authority or mechanism as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice; Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing transfer of investigation in respect of any First Information Reports that may have been lodged or may be registered in future in relation to the cognisable offences disclosed herein to the Special Investigation Team or to such other independent authority or mechanism as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice..."

Another petition has filed by a group of twelve citizens, including former civil servants, diplomats, academicians, researchers, entrepreneurs, and members of civil society, seeking guidelines on statements/remarks made by Constitutional Functionaries which do not comport with constitutional morality. This Petition has been filed by AOR Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi.

The Petitioner says, "During the Constituent Assembly Debates, Acharya Kripalani had reminded the House, with regard to the preambular principles being set out in the Constitution, that these principles were not merely legal, constitutional, and formal principles, but moral principles, and such principles have got to be lived in life — be it political life, commercial life, or the life of an administrator. He had reminded the House that we must remember these principles in order for our Constitution to succeed...More than seven decades later, we find ourselves in a political climate where the preambular principles remain in the text, but actions of administrators and constitutional functionaries often betray their intent. By all means, living the principles, as Acharya Kripalani would have asked for, has been lost — both in thought and practice."

The note of the Petitioners says, "This failure to follow the preambular virtues, and in turn, constitutional morality, has resulted in several concerning statements by public officials. For example, the recent statements Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, encouraging people to keep giving trouble to Muslims and then misattributing words to the Supreme Court to justify such remarks; Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami’s repeated references to land jihad and love jihad amongst others; UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s ‘kathmulla’ remarks in the Assembly; Nitesh Rane terming Muslims as Pakistani pimps, green pigs and snakes; National Security Adviser Ajit Doval exhorting the youth to “avenge history” and other such examples that have come to the fore in the past decade (Note: so far during the research nearly 30 statements have been found)."

It is also submitted that the Petition does not seek to limit free speech or seek punishments for hate speech, which may be dealt with under the relevant law but seeks guidelines, either on court's examination or through a dialogic exercise, for public officials, constitutional functionaries, and executive administrators to follow constitutional morality in their conduct and practice.

"While political personalities belonging to any party may follow a certain ideology and thereby propagate a certain language, constitutional functionaries, holders of public office, and officials of the government are bound by the Constitution to ensure fairness in action. This would also mean that statements which are discriminatory or derogatory in nature — even if not amounting to hate speech — should be impermissible to be uttered by such persons", it says.

Cause Title: Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. Union of India and Ors. [Diary No. 8641/2026], Annie Raja v Union of India[ Diary No. 8461/2026] and Roop Rekha Verma v. UOI [Diary No. 8343/2026].