Jamiat takes Assam CM to Supreme Court over ‘Hate Speech’

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has approached the Supreme Court of India challenging recent public statements made by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, terming them openly communal, deeply polarising and inconsistent with the constitutional values of equality and secularism.

The petition has been filed through Maulana Mahmood Madani, President of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, who has urged the apex court to lay down clear and enforceable guidelines for individuals holding constitutional positions, so that public office is not misused to spread hatred or target any particular community.

Controversial January 27 speech at the centre of the case

At the heart of the petition is a public speech delivered by the Assam Chief Minister on January 27, 2026. During the address, Sarma reportedly stated that four to five lakh “Miya” voters would be removed from the electoral rolls and further claimed that both he and his party were directly opposed to the Miya community.

The petition highlights that the term “Miya” or “Miyan” is commonly used in Assam as a derogatory reference to Muslims, making the remarks particularly inflammatory and exclusionary.

‘Beyond Free Speech, an assault on constitutional values’

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has argued that statements of this nature strike at the core of constitutional principles such as fraternity, human dignity, secularism and equality before law. It has contended that such speech cannot claim protection under the fundamental right to freedom of expression when it promotes hostility against a religious community.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court was informed that the Assam Chief Minister’s remarks amount to an aggravated form of hate speech that undermines constitutional guarantees. The matter is being heard as part of the long-pending hate speech case, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind v. Union of India, which has been before the court since 2021.

Senior advocate flags ‘Aggravated Constitutional Wrong’

In written submissions filed by Senior Advocate M.R. Shamshad on behalf of the organisation, it has been stated that Sarma’s comments went beyond political rhetoric and crossed into constitutionally impermissible territory.

The submissions emphasise that hate speech aimed at religious communities or identities constitutes a serious constitutional violation, as it not only wounds collective dignity but also threatens public order and corrodes the moral fabric of a diverse society.

Pattern of dehumanising labels highlighted

The petition also draws attention to what it describes as a wider trend in public discourse, where sections of citizens—predominantly Muslims—are branded with dehumanising labels such as “ghuspaithiya”, “anti-nationals”, “jihadis”, “atankis”, “sleeper cells”, “stone-pelters”, “miyan” and “katua”.

According to the submissions, these expressions are not neutral descriptors but are used deliberately to marginalise communities. Courts, the petitioners argue, must assess such language in its social and political context rather than in isolation.

Call for uniform action on hate speech complaints

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has further urged the Supreme Court to address what it calls a “pick and choose” approach in the registration of hate speech complaints across the country.

The organisation has sought directions to ensure mandatory registration of complaints in line with the Lalita Kumari judgment, time-bound decision-making, online mechanisms for filing complaints, and institutional accountability for inaction. It has also pressed for consequences such as contempt proceedings and disciplinary action against officials who fail to act on hate speech complaints.

Also Read: Five Assam Workers Among 10 Killed in Meghalaya Coal Mine Blast