Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Feb 16: Even while urging the political parties and political leaders to restrain themselves and “act within the boundaries of constitutional morality,” the Supreme Court on Monday found “no good reason” to entertain a series of petitions seeking a criminal investigation against the Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for giving communal speeches and for a social media post, since deleted, depicting him firing a gun towards an animated image of two Muslim men.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and including Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi, directed the petitioners to first approach the Gauhati High Court and lamented the growing trend of the top court becoming the first stop to resolve disputes, particularly before an election despite the petitioners pointing out that Mr Sarma is the “boss of Assam.” In this instance, Assam will hold an Assembly election likely in March or April.
The petitioners said they had written to the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court but no suo motu proceeding had been initiated. But the Supreme Court pointed out that writing a letter was different to formally filing a plea and, therefore, once again, directed the petitioners to move the High Court.
“Don’t undermine the validity of our high courts. You are demoralising the (Gauhati) High Court,” Chief Justice Surya Kant said. The Supreme Court requested the Gauhati High Court Chief Justice to expeditiously list and hear the petitions, if they are filed before the High Court.
The Supreme Court declined to entertain the petition, though it agreed with the petitioners including the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India, that no political leader or constitutional officeholder should conduct themselves in a manner that would harm the secular ethos and morality enshrined in the Constitution, especially when elections were near.
The petitioner-parties have accused Mr Sarma of indulging in a “sustained pattern of hate speeches.” They said the social media post, circulated in the public domain as a video, on February 7, 2026, from the “official handle of the Bharatiya Janata Party, Assam on X (formerly Twitter), namely, ‘BJP Assam Pradesh’ (@BJP4Assam) and thereafter widely disseminated, has been the most blatant and disturbing manifestation of the pattern complained of.”
The petition said the video was removed from the public domain following severe backlash. However, the material continued to be widely circulated and disseminated through multiple other accounts and platforms.
The petitioners, led by senior advocates A.M. Singhvi, C.U. Singh and advocate Nizam Pasha, submitted that Mr Sarma, while holding the constitutional office of the Chief Minister of Assam, gave speeches which “target, terrorise, and instigate hostility and overt violence against the Muslim community residing in Assam.” Mr Singh said the Assam Chief Minister had given similar “hate speeches” in other States, including Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. Mr Singhvi described the conduct of Mr Sarma as “habitual.”
The CJI complained that “every matter” is directly filed before the Supreme Court by parties who ignore the wide powers of the High Courts. “Whatever the Supreme Court can do, the High Courts can also do,” Chief Justice Kant said. Mr Singhvi said the issue raised in the petitions were not “every matter” but concerned a constitutional officeholder, no less than the head of the State government, allegedly indulging in hate speech and communal incitement.
“This (case) affects fundamental rights under Article 14 (right to equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty),” Singhvi said, “If this case cannot come here, then this court has to determine contour of Article 32 (right to move the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights). We are seeking a SIT… but what can any SIT do in Assam against boss of Assam.”
Singhvi claimed there were 17 other “weaker” instances in which the top court had allowed a different High Court to be approached. “He (Chief Minister Sarma) is a habitual and repeat offender… this would be the ideal case for the Supreme Court to exercise its Article 32 power.”
The CJI said High Courts would be demoralised with petitions bypassing them to come straight to the Supreme Court. “But such people [Sarma] demoralise the country… His speeches and conduct are a brazen attack on the ethos of the country and the sanctity of his constitutional office. The Supreme Court is not barred from taking a petition directly under Article 32 of the Constitution. It is the discretion of the Supreme Court,” Mr Singhvi submitted.
The Chief Justice said it would be convenient for both parties to move Gauhati High Court while Mr Singhvi pointed out that “convenience” was a low threshold to refuse a public interest petition highlighting an issue of such a nature. Chief Justice Kant urged the petitioners to have faith in the “system.”