The Gauhati High Court has issued notices to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, the Union of India, the State of Assam and the Director General of Police in a batch of public interest litigations alleging repeated hate speeches against a section of the Muslim community.
The matter was heard by a Division Bench of 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 fixed April 21, 2026 for the next hearing. The petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The case reached the High Court after the Supreme Court of India granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the Gauhati High Court. Among the petitioners are noted Assamese intellectual Hirendranath Gohain, along with Harekrishna Deka and Paresh Chandra Malakar. Separate petitions have also been filed by leaders associated with the CPI and CPI(M).
Senior advocates appearing for the petitioners argued that several public statements attributed to the Chief Minister were divisive and violative of constitutional values. At one point, the Chief Justice observed that the material shown did appear to reflect a “fissiparous tendency,” adding that the court would examine the responses before forming any final view. “Let us see what they are saying,” the Bench said.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that the alleged remarks were not isolated instances but part of a repeated pattern. He referred to Articles 14 and 15 and the Preamble, arguing that such statements undermined secularism and fraternity. He also mentioned a video shared by the BJP’s Assam unit in which the Chief Minister was seen firing toward animated figures, describing it as “reprehensible,” and noting that it was later removed.
Senior Advocate C.U. Singh told the court that statements suggesting removal of “four to five lakh Miya voters” and references to “vote chori” created a disturbing situation. He argued that when a constitutional authority speaks, the words carry weight and restraint is expected.
Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora also argued that there was a consistent pattern in the alleged remarks and said invoking religion in public discourse to seek votes was incompatible with India’s secular framework.
The court did not grant any interim stay but orally observed that persons holding high constitutional office are generally expected to exercise caution in public statements, especially when issues are before the court.