Supreme Court on Himanta Biswa Sarma Hate Speech Plea: “SC Not a Political Battleground”, Petitioners Asked to Approach Gauhati High Court

Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain Direct Plea Against Assam CM, Cites Constitutional Route Under Article 32

The Supreme Court of India on Monday (February 16, 2026) declined to entertain a series of petitions seeking a criminal investigation against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over alleged communal speeches and a controversial social media video.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, asked the petitioners — including the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Communist Party of India and others — to first approach the Gauhati High Court instead of directly invoking the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The Court remarked that the Supreme Court “turns into a political battleground whenever elections are on the radar.”

What the Petitions Alleged Against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma

The petitions accused the Assam Chief Minister of indulging in a “sustained pattern of hate speeches.”

Specifically, they referred to:

• Alleged communal speeches made by Mr. Sarma

• A “shooting” video posted on X (formerly Twitter)

• A social media post depicting him firing a gun towards an animated image of two Muslim men

• The video being circulated from the official BJP Assam Pradesh handle (@BJP4Assam)

• The video being widely disseminated before being removed following backlash

• Continued circulation of the material across other platforms even after deletion

The petitioners argued that the speeches and video:

“target, terrorise and instigate hostility and overt violence against the Muslim community residing in the State of Assam.”

They further alleged that similar speeches were delivered by Mr. Sarma in other States including Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand.

Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi described the Chief Minister’s conduct as “habitual.”

Supreme Court: “Do Not Undermine High Courts”

The Supreme Court strongly objected to the practice of directly filing such petitions under Article 32 without first approaching the jurisdictional High Court.

CJI Surya Kant observed:

“Wherever elections come, this Court becomes a political battleground.”

He added:

“The entire effort is to undermine, demoralise the High Courts — which is not acceptable to us. There is a very calculated move to undermine the authority of the High Courts. They are constitutional courts and have more power than us.”

The Bench made it clear that:

• High Courts have wide powers

• The Gauhati High Court can grant the same reliefs sought

• Petitioners must follow the constitutionally prescribed route

The Court stated:

“In our considered view, all these issues can be effectively adjudicated by the jurisdictional High Court… consequently, without expressing any opinion on merits, we relegate the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional High Court.”

However, acknowledging the urgency claimed in the petitions, the Bench requested the Gauhati High Court Chief Justice to provide an expeditious hearing.

Article 32 and the Debate Over Direct Access to Supreme Court

Article 32 of the Constitution grants individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi argued that:

• The Supreme Court has directly entertained 17 such cases under Article 32

• Article 32 was created for “mega cases”

• The High Court’s power was not in doubt

• The issue involved a constitutional officeholder

Singhvi said:

“This is not every matter… It is an all-India issue.”

He emphasised that:

“The Supreme Court is not barred from taking a petition directly under Article 32. It is the discretion of the Supreme Court.”

However, the CJI responded:

“Please come to us via the constitutionally prescribed route… What are the High Courts for?”

He further said:

“If every matter across the country were to come to the Supreme Court, it will be unmanageable for us, with 33 judges.”

No FIRs Registered? Supreme Court’s Response

Petitioners argued that:

• FIRs were not being registered in Assam

• Technical objections were cited

• There exists a Supreme Court order that failure to register FIR in hate speech cases could attract contempt proceedings

Advocate Mohammad Nizamuddin Pasha raised the issue of contempt.

The CJI replied:

“There is no contempt case before us. And you have not even gone to the High Court.”

The Court maintained that the same reliefs could be granted by the High Court and possibly more.

Supreme Court’s Position on Constitutional Morality and Secular Ethos

While refusing to entertain the petition, the Supreme Court made an important observation:

No political leader or constitutional officeholder should conduct themselves in a manner that harms the secular ethos and morality enshrined in the Constitution, especially when elections are near.

However, it held that the proper forum for adjudication in this case was the Gauhati High Court.

The CJI urged the petitioners:

“Have faith in the system… In our anxiety to invoke one jurisdiction, we must not undermine other jurisdictions.”

The Political and Legal Context

The matter arises amid heightened political tensions ahead of elections.

The petitioners argued that:

• The Chief Minister is the “boss of Assam”

• It would be difficult to expect state-level accountability

• The issue impacts constitutional fabric nationwide

Singhvi submitted:

“His speeches and conduct are a brazen attack on the ethos of the country and the sanctity of his constitutional office.”

The CJI countered:

“Go and approach the High Court against him. Who is stopping you?”

Gauhati High Court Now the Next Legal Arena

The Supreme Court’s order effectively shifts the legal battle to the Gauhati High Court.

The Bench formally requested:

• The Gauhati High Court Chief Justice to list the matter expeditiously if filed

• The High Court to examine the issue strictly in accordance with law

The Supreme Court left open the possibility that:

• If relief is not granted

• Petitioners may return to the Supreme Court

Constitutional Significance of the Supreme Court’s Stand

This order reinforces several institutional principles:

1. Federal Judicial Structure

   • High Courts are constitutional courts.

   • They possess broad writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

2. Judicial Discipline

   • Litigants must follow the prescribed hierarchy.

   • Direct filing in the Supreme Court should not become routine.

3. Institutional Balance

   • The Supreme Court expressed concern over “demoralising” High Courts.

   • The Court emphasised constitutional confidence in High Courts.

4. Election Sensitivity

   • The remark about the Court becoming a “political battleground” underscores judicial caution during election cycles.

Supreme Court Draws Line on Jurisdictional Discipline

The Supreme Court’s refusal to directly entertain the Himanta Biswa Sarma hate speech petitions marks a clear assertion of judicial hierarchy.

While acknowledging the seriousness of allegations concerning communal speeches and constitutional morality, the Court stressed:

• Proper procedural route must be followed.

• High Courts must not be bypassed.

• The Supreme Court is not a first-instance forum for every politically sensitive case.

The matter now moves to the Gauhati High Court, where the constitutional, criminal, and free speech dimensions of the controversy will be examined.