Why Should We Become Political Battleground During Elections: Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Pleas Seeking Action Against Assam CM Himanta Sarma

The Supreme Court, today, has refused to entertain petitions seeking urgent legal action against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for the alleged communal speeches and asked the Petitioners to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

The Court on February 10, 2026, 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 of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi ordered, "These writ petitions have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking various directions against the Respondents. In our considered view, all these issues can be effectively, examined and adjudicated, by the jurisdictional High Court. We therefore see no good reason to entertain these petitions, before this Court at this stage. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the matter, we relegate the Petitioners to the jurisdictional High Courts. Since the petitioners have asserted that the matter requires urgent attention, we request the jurisdictional High Court, to provide an expeditious hearing."

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manusinghvi, Senior Advocate CU Singh and Advocate Nizam Pasha appeared for the Petitioner, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union of India.

The Court asked the Petitioners, "Why have you not gone to the High Court, unless the High Court also has become a ground for political battle?"

Singhvi replied, "Number 1, this affects the fundamental rights under Article 14,15 and 21...If this case cannot come here, then this court has to determine what is the contour of Article 32. If this matter can't come to the Supreme Court pillars, then your lordship will consider what would be the focus of 32. That's point number one...Number 2...we are seeking an SIT and what an SIT in Assam can do against the Boss of Assam."

"The problem is that, unfortunately, whenever the election will start coming, first of all, we will earnestly appeal to the parties, political parties, who so ever they may be, that itself and mutual respect, a sense of restraint, and whatever you want to express your opinion, that should be within the constitutional morality, constitutional principles, or whatever the law of the land. That we expect them to... But this is also a new emerging trend, that whenever the election in A state, B state, D state comes, this Cport becomes a political battle", the Court said.

Singhvi said, "He (Sarma) is a habitual and repeated offender. This would be the ideal case for the Supreme Court to exercise its Article 32 power. There are examples of Bilkis Rasool, Vinod Dua, etc."

"I have been telling this repeatedly that please do not undermine the sanctity of constitutional high courts. I have seen this trend repeatedly. Unfortunately, in this country, what has happened...by establishing the judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals, you have already bypassed the High Courts. The judges in High Courts who have a short tenure don't even get to learn environmental law etc. Please come to us through the proper constitutional route", Chief Justice Kant added.

"If you don't get the desired results in 226(Article 226)...come to us...our doors are open", Chief Justice Kant said.

"Fortunately, the only power which is surviving intact with the High Courts is that of 226; somebody has not been able to amend 226, thanks to the basic structure, otherwise the High Courts will be deprived of that...", Chief Justice Kant remarked.

The Court added, "Why the Supreme Court should become a playground for a certain...we are saying respect the High Courts, we will ask the High Court to expedite to give the urgent hearing to all of you..."

The Court expressed deep concern over a "disturbing trend" where every major matter bypasses the High Courts. They argued that the High Courts (under Article 226) actually have wider powers than the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate CU Singh submitted, "They had written to the High Court Chief Justice for suo motu cognizance. But nothing was done."

Counsel pointed out that the speeches weren't just in Assam, but also in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, making it a "pan-India" issue.

Chief Justice Kant, "Once you file a plea, you have to be heard...in case of...suo motu is a prerogative of the court. Individuals are eminent personalities....we are not on ideologies. That is what disturbs me when they say they will not touch the high court..."

The Bench emphasized that the High Court is a Constitutional Court, not a subordinate one, and must be respected as the first port of call.

Accordingly, the petitions were disposed of.

Background

The Petition, filed by AOR Lzafeer Ahmad B F, said, "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 was 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 added.

The Petitioner also alleged 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.”

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 was filed by AOR Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi.

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].