The Supreme Court of India on Monday declined to entertain petitions seeking registration of an FIR and further action against Himanta Biswa Sarma over alleged hate speech, directing the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional High Court instead. The Court requested the High Court to take up the matter expeditiously.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi expressed reluctance to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. The bench held that the issues raised could be effectively adjudicated by the Gauhati High Court and emphasized that petitioners should not bypass High Courts by directly approaching the Supreme Court.
"All these issues can be effectively adjudicated by the jurisdictional High Court. We see no reason to entertain this here, and thus we relegate the petitioners to the jurisdictional High Court. We request the High Court Chief Justice to expeditious hearing," the bench observed in its order while disposing of the petitions.
At the outset, the CJI remarked on the growing trend of politically sensitive matters being brought directly before the apex court. "Wherever the elections come, this Court becomes a political battleground." He further urged political parties to contest elections based on "mutual respect and self-restraint."
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for some of the petitioners, argued that the matter went beyond mere criminal offences and involved an alleged violation of constitutional oath by a public office-holder. He contended that the case was fit for invoking Article 32 and pressed for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe, asserting that the High Court may not be an adequate forum given that the allegations were against a sitting Chief Minister.
The bench, however, rejected submissions suggesting that the petitioners approach a High Court outside Assam, with the CJI stating that such arguments undermined the authority of High Courts. "Don't undermine the authority of the High Courts," he said, adding that there appeared to be a calculated attempt to demoralise High Court judges by routinely bypassing them.
During the proceedings, Singhvi referred to alleged objectionable statements made by Sarma and described him as a "habitual offender." He argued that the matter had pan-India implications and cited previous instances where the Supreme Court directly entertained petitions. The CJI reiterated that the High Court was competent to consider all reliefs sought, including the constitution of an SIT if deemed necessary.
Advocate Nizam Pasha, also appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the High Court may need to constitute an SIT comprising officers from outside Assam. Responding to this, the CJI observed that High Courts possess such powers and can issue appropriate directions where required. "Go through the channel, trust the High Court, approach them," he stated.
The petitions before the Court included those filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), party leader Annie Raja, and four Assamese individuals, who sought action against Sarma over a series of alleged hate speeches and a controversial video posted on social media that was later deleted. The petitioners contended that the statements attributed to the Chief Minister targeted a particular community and warranted criminal action as well as an independent investigation.
Another petition by four Assamese citizens alleged repeated remarks by the Chief Minister that purportedly incited discrimination and social boycott against Bengali-origin Muslims in Assam. Additional representations by civil society groups and religious organisations have also called for judicial intervention to restrain persons holding constitutional office from making divisive statements.
Concluding the hearing, the bench reiterated its confidence in the High Court’s ability to address the grievances raised. "We are absolutely confident that the High Court will deal with the matter in accordance with the principles," the CJI stated, while declining requests to make broader observations on restraint by constitutional functionaries.
