Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear petitions seeking the registration of a police case against Himanta Biswa Sarma over alleged hate speech targeting Muslims, directing the petitioners to approach the Gauhati High Court instead.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant said the High Court should take up the matter on priority. The court also rejected a plea to transfer the case to another High Court, cautioning against what it described as “convenience forum shopping”.
High Courts are constitutional courts meant to ensure access to justice, the bench said, adding that their sanctity should not be undermined.
The petitions were filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Annie Raja of the Communist Party of India, seeking directions to lodge a first information report against Sarma, a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
The petitioners cited several public statements by the Assam chief minister allegedly targeting Bengali-origin Muslims, as well as a since-deleted social media post by the BJP’s Assam unit that showed a video of Sarma symbolically firing at images of two Muslim men at close range.
In recent weeks, Sarma has referred to Bengali-origin Muslims as “Miyas” and said it was his responsibility to “make them suffer”. In Assam, the term “Miya” is often used as a slur for Muslims of Bengali origin and is commonly associated with allegations that they are undocumented migrants from Bangladesh. The term has also been reclaimed by sections of the community as a self-descriptor.
In their pleas before the Supreme Court, the CPI(M) and Raja sought the formation of a Special Investigation Team, arguing that state and central agencies would be unable to conduct an independent probe.
They submitted statements made by Sarma between 2021 and February 2026 which, they alleged, called for the social, economic and civic exclusion of Bengali-origin Muslims, including restrictions on access to livelihoods, transport, land and voting rights.
The petitioners argued that the remarks had led to incidents of alleged discrimination and harassment, with some perpetrators claiming to be acting on the chief minister’s direction. They also contended that the statements violated the oath of office taken by the chief minister to uphold the Constitution and ensure equality and fraternity.