The Supreme Court of India on Monday declined to entertain a set of petitions seeking action against Himanta Biswa Sarma, Chief Minister of Assam, over allegations of hate speech and controversial remarks ahead of the forthcoming state elections. A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant firmly reiterated that litigants must first approach the appropriate High Court instead of directly filing matters before the apex court.
The petitions, filed by leaders from the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Communist Party of India, public figures including Annie Raja, and Assamese scholar Hiren Gohain, sought the registration of first information reports (FIRs) and the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe alleged discriminatory speeches by Sarma as well as a now-deleted video that appeared to show him aiming a rifle at two men, one with a beard and another wearing a skullcap.
Bench Emphasises Jurisdictional Protocol
A three-judge bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi rejected the petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution on procedural grounds, asserting that High Courts are fully competent to deal with such matters. “Wherever elections come, this court becomes a political battleground,” CJI Surya Kant said, stressing that direct appeals to the Supreme Court undermine the role and authority of High Courts.
The bench directed the petitioners to approach the Gauhati High Court, urging its Chief Justice to ensure an expeditious hearing of the matter if filed there. “Please come to us via the constitutionally prescribed route… we are always open,” the Chief Justice said, reinforcing the judiciary’s hierarchical structure.
Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing petitioners, argued that the case involved serious constitutional questions touching upon fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21, and contended that authorities had failed to register FIRs against the Chief Minister. However, the bench maintained that such issues can be effectively addressed at the High Court level, adding that High Courts possess broader powers under Article 226 to grant relief.
Alarm Over “Disturbing Trend”
In its observations, the Supreme Court took a strong view of the growing tendency among litigants to bypass High Courts and rush to the apex court particularly during election periods. “This is becoming a trend just before elections,” the CJI remarked, noting that High Courts should not be sidelined. The bench underscored that Supreme Court intervention should follow established legal avenues and not be treated as a “shortcut” or a forum for political publicity.
The court also rejected suggestions that the case be transferred to another High Court outside Assam, with the CJI calling such requests an attempt at “convenience forum shopping.”
Political and Legal Fallout
The refusal to entertain the pleas at the apex level comes amid heightened political debate over campaign rhetoric ahead of the Assam Assembly elections, where Sarma’s remarks and the disputed video have drawn national attention and criticism from opposition parties and civil liberties groups.
Petitioners have signalled their intention to pursue the matter before the Gauhati High Court, even as legal experts suggest that the High Court route may set important precedents on hate speech litigation, especially when allegations involve high-profile political figures.
