The Gauhati High Court on Thursday issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and two connected petitions seeking directions to restrain Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma from allegedly making hate speeches against minority communities in the state. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury directed that notices be issued to the Union of India, the State of Assam, the Director General of Police (DGP), and Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. The court also issued notice on the plea for interim relief and listed the matter for hearing after the Bihu holidays in April.
The PIL, filed by noted Assamese scholar Dr Hirendranath Gohain and two others, contends that despite the existence of public videos containing the Chief Minister’s alleged hate speeches, the Assam Police has failed to register a suo motu FIR. The petition argues that such inaction fosters a “climate of impunity” and creates a chilling effect on constitutional values. The petitioners have sought directions to restrain the Chief Minister from making statements that allegedly incite civilians to take the law into their own hands against minority communities.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had asked the petitioners, who had initially approached the apex court seeking action against Sarma for alleged hate speech, to move the Gauhati High Court. After hearing detailed submissions, the High Court observed that at this stage notices would first be issued on both the main prayers and the ad-interim relief. When the petitioners pressed for an immediate restraining order, the bench orally remarked that a normal restraint would operate while the petition is under consideration. The court clarified that issuing notice to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was not necessary at this stage.
During arguments, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for one of the petitioners, alleged that the Chief Minister’s actions reflected consistency, continuity and a habitual pattern. He argued that Sarma had violated his oath of office and fundamental constitutional principles, including Articles 14 and 15, as well as the ideals of secularism and fraternity enshrined in the Preamble. Referring to past speeches, including remarks allegedly made in 2023 in Chhattisgarh concerning “love jihad” and “unlawful religious conversion,” Singhvi contended that such comments carried pan-India implications. He further submitted that invoking Mahatma Gandhi’s doctrine of civil disobedience in a manner that targets a specific community was deeply inappropriate. Singhvi urged the court to direct registration of an FIR and to restrain further such speeches.
Senior advocate Chander Uday Singh, appearing for Dr Gohain along with advocates Sauradeep Dey, Rupali Samuel and Yash S Vijay, submitted that the petitioners approached the court with anguish, asserting that the Chief Minister represents every citizen of the state. He argued that repeated remarks referring to Bengali migrant Muslims as “Miya” were derogatory and divisive. Singh cited several instances from 2023 and 2024, including statements allegedly made in the state assembly during discussions on Mission Basundhara, remarks linking a private university in Meghalaya to flooding in Guwahati and calling it “flood jihad,” and comments suggesting deletion of “Miya” voters during electoral roll revision. He further alleged that the Chief Minister had made statements implying that people should give trouble to members of a particular community, which, according to him, amounted to incitement.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Amish Devgan case, Singh argued that when hate speech is made by an influential public figure, the police have a duty to register an FIR suo motu. He also cited a Supreme Court observation in the ‘Ghooskhor Pandit’ film case, where Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had stated that public figures holding constitutional offices must not target communities on religious, caste, linguistic or regional grounds.
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing in a connected petition, submitted that statements allegedly made by the Chief Minister had the potential to create law-and-order problems. She referred to remarks attributed to Sarma in response to former US President Barack Obama’s comments on minority rights, and alleged that the Chief Minister had repeatedly blamed a specific community for social and economic issues. Arora contended that such statements incite hostility and that the court must direct the registration of an FIR while also ordering the Chief Minister to cease and desist from making statements contrary to constitutional morality.
The PIL also seeks the constitution of an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe alleged offences under Sections 196, 197 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the setting up of a commission chaired by a former High Court judge to monitor the probe, and a declaration that the Chief Minister violated his constitutional oath. The petitioners have urged the court to intervene to dispel the perception that hate speech in Assam goes unpunished. The matters, registered as PIL/14/2026 and PIL/15/2026, are now scheduled for further hearing in April.