Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a clutch of petitions seeking criminal action against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over alleged discriminatory remarks and a viral video that purportedly showed him firing a rifle in the direction of members of a particular community.A bench of the apex court said it was not inclined to intervene at this stage, effectively shutting the door on demands for registration of a first information report and the constitution of a Special Investigation Team to probe the allegations. Petitioners had urged the court to direct immediate criminal proceedings, arguing that the remarks and the video had the potential to inflame communal tensions and undermine constitutional protections.
The controversy centres on Sarma’s reported use of the term “Miya”, a word that in Assam’s political discourse has been used in reference to Bengali-speaking Muslims, often in a pejorative sense. Critics contend that the expression carries derogatory connotations and exacerbates existing social fault lines in a state that has long grappled with complex questions of identity, migration and citizenship.
Petitioners also cited a video that circulated widely on social media platforms, claiming it showed the chief minister taking aim and firing a rifle in the presence of individuals belonging to a specific community. They alleged that the imagery, coupled with inflammatory rhetoric, could amount to incitement and warranted a thorough, court-monitored investigation.
Sarma has denied any wrongdoing. On previous occasions when his statements drew criticism, he has defended his language as contextual and accused political opponents of misrepresenting his remarks. Supporters within the Bharatiya Janata Party have argued that the term in question is widely used in local parlance and that attempts to criminalise political speech risk setting a troubling precedent.
Legal experts note that the Supreme Court has historically exercised restraint in directing the registration of FIRs or constituting SITs, particularly when alternative remedies are available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Courts have often held that individuals aggrieved by alleged offences can approach local police authorities or magistrates before seeking extraordinary constitutional remedies.
The bench’s refusal to entertain the petitions does not amount to a judicial endorsement of the statements attributed to Sarma, but it signals reluctance to convert politically charged disputes into court-monitored criminal investigations without clear statutory grounds. Observers say the order reflects a broader judicial trend of caution in cases that sit at the intersection of political speech and criminal law.
Assam’s political climate has been shaped by debates over the National Register of Citizens and the Citizenship Act, both of which triggered widespread protests and polarised opinion across communities. In that context, language used by public officials is scrutinised closely for its potential impact on communal harmony.
Human rights advocates have argued that public figures bear a heightened responsibility to avoid speech that could stigmatise minorities. They contend that even indirect references can legitimise prejudice or create an atmosphere of hostility. At the same time, free speech proponents warn against expansive interpretations of criminal law that could chill robust political discourse.
The legal threshold for prosecuting hate speech in India is defined by provisions of the Penal Code that criminalise promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race or language, among others. Courts have repeatedly emphasised that context, intent and the likelihood of public disorder are critical factors in determining culpability.
Senior advocates familiar with similar litigation point out that the Supreme Court has, in past cases, laid down guidelines to curb hate speech but has also underscored that enforcement primarily lies with the executive. Direct judicial supervision is typically reserved for cases involving systemic failure or demonstrable bias in investigation.
Political reactions to the court’s stance were swift. Opposition leaders expressed disappointment, asserting that the highest court should have taken cognisance of what they described as a serious threat to constitutional values. They indicated that they would explore other legal avenues, including approaching lower courts or filing fresh complaints with law enforcement authorities.
Within Assam, the episode adds another layer to an already charged political atmosphere ahead of future electoral contests. Sarma, who has served as chief minister since May 2021 after a long career in state politics, remains a central figure in the state’s governance and a prominent voice within his party’s national leadership.