Gauhati HC issues notice to Assam CM Himanta for ‘hate speech’

The Gauhati High Court on Thursday (February 26, 2026) issued a notice to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma after hearing multiple petitions seeking action against him for alleged hate speeches targeting Muslims whom the Chief Minister addresses as the ‘miya’ community.

Miya is a pejorative term commonly used in Assam to refer to Bengali-speaking or Bengali-origin Muslims. The Chief Minister has gone on record to say that the word means “illegal immigrants”.

A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, heard senior advocates representing the petitioners and directed that notices be served to the Chief Minister, as well as the Central and the Assam governments. The next hearing is scheduled for April 21.

The petitioners include the Congress party, Assamese scholar Hiren Gohain, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist), who had initially approached the Supreme Court. The apex court advised them to go to the high court.

Reining in a bigot: On the Assam Chief Minister’s incendiary rhetoric

Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Chander Uday Singh and Meenakshi Arora argued that Mr. Sarma made provocative and threatening statements against Muslims in Assam. They pointed to a video (now deleted) shared on X showing the Chief Minister symbolically shooting at people wearing skull caps and told the court about his reported plans to manipulate the voters’ list, an alleged threat to restrict voting rights, and a call for an economic boycott of the community.

Mr. Singhvi argued that Mr. Sarma’s repeated statements reflected a “habitual pattern of incitement” and were not in keeping with his duties as the head of the State. Ms. Arora made a similar argument, citing instances where the Chief Minister discouraged students from attending institutions founded by people from minority communities. They argued that such remarks violated constitutional principles, including the secular mandate and provisions of equality enshrined in the Preamble, and could threaten law and order.

The court observed that the statements cited by the petitioners appeared to show a “fissiparous tendency” but said it would examine all submissions before drawing a conclusion.