HC Puts Assam CM on Notice in Hate Speech Case; Court Observes ‘Fissiparous Tendency’ in Remarks

GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has issued notices to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, the Union Government, the State of Assam and the Director General of Police in a batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) alleging repeated hate speeches against a section of the Muslim community.

The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury. After hearing arguments for nearly 90 minutes, the Bench directed the respondents to file their replies and posted the case for further hearing on April 21, 2026. The petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The pleas reached the High Court after the Supreme Court of India granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the Gauhati High Court instead of directly entertaining the matter. Among the petitioners are noted Assamese intellectual Dr. Hirendranath Gohain and two others, along with separate pleas by Harekrishna Deka and Paresh Chandra Malakar. A petition has also been filed by leaders associated with the CPI and CPI(M).

During the hearing, senior advocates for the petitioners argued that several public statements attributed to the Chief Minister were “divisive, inflammatory and violative of constitutional morality.” Referring to remarks allegedly targeting “Miya Muslims” and invoking what counsel described as a “cowboy image,” they submitted that such statements “have the potential to disturb communal harmony and undermine the secular fabric of the State.”

At one stage, the Chief Justice observed that the material shown to the court did appear to reflect a “fissiparous tendency,” though he clarified that the court would examine the responses before forming a final view. “There is a fissiparous tendency, it appears, from what you are showing. Let us see what they are saying,” the Bench remarked.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for some of the petitioners, contended that the alleged statements were not stray remarks but part of a sustained pattern. “It is sad to say but a constitutional authority in the State has acted repetitively, habitually and consistently by using words of a vituperative campaign of hate,” he submitted. Referring to Articles 14 and 15 and the Preamble, Singhvi argued that the remarks undermined “secularism and fraternity,” core constitutional values.

He also drew attention to a video shared by the BJP’s Assam unit in which the Chief Minister was seen firing toward animated figures of two Muslim men, accompanied by phrases such as “Point blank shot” and “No Mercy.” Calling it “reprehensible and inexcusable,” Singhvi said the issue was aggravated because it involved “the chief executive of a State.” Though the video was later taken down, he noted that it had garnered over a million views before its removal.

Senior Advocate C.U. Singh argued that the Chief Minister had engaged in “dog whistling,” including comments suggesting that “four to five lakh Miya voters” would be removed from electoral rolls and references to “vote chori.” He told the court that such statements created a “disruptive and demeaning situation” and were deeply distressing. “When a constitutional functionary speaks, the words carry weight. The Constitution expects restraint, not rhetoric that may alienate communities,” he submitted. Singh further argued that Supreme Court precedents require police authorities to act suo motu in cases of hate speech, particularly when the alleged remarks are made by a person holding high office.

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora submitted that there was a “consistent pattern” in the Chief Minister’s statements directed at a particular community. “This is not something happening only during elections. There is a pattern, a consistency here,” she said, adding that invoking religion in public discourse to seek votes or stigmatise others was incompatible with India’s secular framework.

After hearing all sides, the Bench issued formal notices to all respondents. While no interim stay was granted, the court orally observed that “persons holding high constitutional office are generally expected to exercise caution in public discourse, particularly when issues are sub judice.”

The respondents, including the Union of India and the State of Assam, have been asked to place their stand on record before the next hearing. The development has triggered political reactions across Assam, with opposition leaders calling it “a significant step towards accountability,” even as the Chief Minister’s office has not yet issued a detailed response.

With the High Court now seized of the matter, attention will turn to the affidavits to be filed by the respondents when the case comes up again in April.