Delhi’s Saket court has issued notice to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and Delhi Police on a petition seeking registration of an FIR over alleged provocative remarks concerning “Miya Muslims”, widening judicial scrutiny of campaign-era political speech in Assam.
Additional Sessions Judge Sonu Agnihotri issued the notice while hearing a revision petition filed by rights activist Harsh Mander against an April 20 order of a magisterial court that had declined to direct police to register a case against Sarma. The matter has been listed for July 15, when the court is expected to examine whether police action can be ordered despite earlier findings on jurisdiction and the alleged absence of immediate public disorder within the court’s territorial reach.
Mander’s plea centres on comments allegedly made by Sarma on January 27 at Digboi in Tinsukia district, where the chief minister was accused of saying that “four to five lakh Miya voters” would be removed from electoral rolls during a special intensive revision exercise. The complaint further alleged that the remarks were aimed at Bengali-origin Muslims in Assam and could inflame communal sentiment at a politically sensitive time.
The expression “Miya” is widely used in Assam to refer to Bengali-origin Muslims, though its political meaning remains contested. Community leaders and civil rights groups say the term is often deployed pejoratively in public discourse around migration, land rights and citizenship. Sarma and his supporters have argued that his government’s position concerns electoral integrity, identity verification and action against what they describe as illegal immigration.
The revision petition has brought the question of Zero FIR into focus. Mander’s counsel placed before the court the standard operating procedure for Zero FIR and E-FIR, arguing that police should not refuse registration merely because the alleged offence may have occurred outside their immediate jurisdiction. The argument seeks to challenge the reasoning of the earlier magisterial order, which held that there was no material to show that the alleged speech had caused enmity, disharmony or insult to religious beliefs within the court’s jurisdiction.
The April 20 order had declined action under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including those dealing with promotion of enmity, threats to national integration, deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings, words or gestures meant to wound religious sentiments, and circulation of statements capable of causing public mischief. The revision plea now asks the sessions court to re-examine whether the complaint warranted police investigation rather than judicial dismissal at the threshold.
The legal challenge comes against a broader backdrop of litigation over alleged hate speech linked to Assam politics. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined to directly entertain petitions seeking criminal action and a special investigation against Sarma over alleged anti-Muslim remarks and a video controversy, asking petitioners to approach the Gauhati High Court. The top court’s observations placed emphasis on the role of jurisdictional high courts and warned against turning the apex court into a forum for politically charged disputes during election cycles.
Sarma remains one of the BJP’s most assertive state leaders after securing a second consecutive term as Assam chief minister following the party-led alliance’s commanding performance in the 2026 Assembly election. The alliance won 102 of 126 seats, strengthening Sarma’s authority and reinforcing the BJP’s hold over the state’s political landscape. His administration has since moved ahead with a policy agenda that includes electoral roll scrutiny, a Uniform Civil Code push, and tighter controls around land and identity-linked governance.
Opposition parties and civil rights campaigners have accused the chief minister of using demographic anxieties to consolidate support among majority voters. They argue that repeated references to “Miya” communities risk placing a vulnerable minority under suspicion and could undermine confidence in the fairness of state institutions. BJP leaders, in contrast, maintain that the government is acting within the law to protect indigenous communities, prevent illegal entries in voter lists and address long-standing concerns over migration from across the border.
The Delhi proceedings could test how far courts are willing to intervene when political remarks made in one state are challenged through legal mechanisms in another jurisdiction. The dispute also raises questions about the practical scope of Zero FIR rules, especially in cases involving public speech, alleged hate offences and digital dissemination beyond the place where the statement was first made.
For Sarma, the notice does not amount to a finding of guilt or a direction to register a case. It gives him and Delhi Police an opportunity to respond to the allegations and to the petitioner’s reliance on procedural rules governing FIR registration. For Mander, the case offers another route to press for investigation into speech he says targeted a defined community at a time when Assam was preparing for electoral roll scrutiny and high-stakes Assembly polls.
