The Gauhati High Court issued notice to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over petitions alleging hate speech against Muslims.
Petitioners argued that the Chief Minister’s remarks about the ‘miya’ community violate constitutional principles of equality and secularism.
The court has asked the Centre and the Assam government to respond; the next hearing is set for April 21.
Gauhati High Court Issues Notice To Himanta Biswa Sarma Over ‘hate speech’ Targeting Muslims
Court observes that statements cited by petitioners suggest a “fissiparous tendency”; next hearing scheduled for April 21.
Summary
The Gauhati High Court on Thursday issued a notice to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma after hearing multiple petitions seeking action against him for alleged hate speeches targeting Muslims in the State.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury directed that notices be served to the Chief Minister, the Central government, and the Assam government. The matter will next be heard on April 21.
The petitions were filed by the Indian National Congress, Assamese scholar Hiren Gohain, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist). The petitioners had initially approached the Supreme Court of India, which advised them to move the High Court.
Senior advocates including Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Chander Uday Singh and Meenakshi Arora argued that Mr. Sarma had made provocative and threatening remarks against Muslims in Assam, particularly referring to them as the ‘miya’ community. The term is often used in the State as a pejorative reference to Bengali-speaking or Bengali-origin Muslims, while the Chief Minister has said it refers to “illegal immigrants.”
The petitioners also cited a video shared on social media — which has since been deleted — allegedly showing the Chief Minister symbolically shooting at individuals wearing skull caps. They further claimed that he had made statements about manipulating the voters’ list, restricting voting rights, and calling for an economic boycott of the community.
Mr. Singhvi argued before the court that the remarks demonstrated a “habitual pattern of incitement” inconsistent with the constitutional responsibilities of a Chief Minister. The lawyers contended that such statements undermined the secular and equality principles embedded in the Preamble of the Constitution and could potentially threaten law and order in the State.
During the hearing, the Bench observed that the statements cited by the petitioners appeared to indicate a “fissiparous tendency,” but clarified that it would examine all submissions and materials before arriving at any conclusion.
Published At: