Supreme Court finds ‘no good reason’ to entertain pleas for ‘hate speech’ FIR against Assam CM

The Supreme Court on Monday (February 16, 2026) found “no good reason” to entertain a series of petitions seeking a criminal investigation against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for serially indulging in communal speeches and for a social media post, since deleted, depicting him discharging a firearm toward an animated image of two visibly Muslim men.

Instead, a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant asked the petitioners, including the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India, to approach the State High Court despite the petitioners pointing out that Mr. Sarma was the “boss of Assam”.

The apex court declined to entertain the petition though agreeing with the petitioners that no political leader or constitutional office-holders should conduct himself in a manner which would harm the secular ethos and morality enshrined in the Constitution, especially when elections were closing in.

The petitioner-parties have accused Mr. Sarma of indulging in a “sustained pattern of hate speeches”. They said the social media post, circulated in the public domain as a video, on February 7, 2026 from the “official handle of the Bharatiya Janata Party, Assam on X (formerly Twitter), namely, ‘BJP Assam Pradesh’ (@BJP4Assam) and thereafter widely disseminated, has been the most blatant and disturbing manifestation of the pattern complained of”.

The petition said that the video was removed from the public domain following severe backlash. However, the material continued to be widely circulated and disseminated through multiple other accounts and platforms.

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

The petitioners, led by senior advocates AM Singhvi, CU Singh and advocate Nizam Pasha, submitted that Mr. Sarma, while holding the Constitutional office of the Chief Minister of the State of Assam, gave speeches which “target, terrorise, and instigate hostility and overt violence against the Muslim community residing in Assam”.

Mr. Singh said the Assam Chief Minister had given similar “hate speeches” in other States, including Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. Mr. Singhvi described the conduct of Mr. Sarma as “habitual”.

The Supreme Court requested the Gauhati High Court Chief Justice to expeditiously list and hear the petitions, if they are filed before the High Court.

The CJI complained that “every matter” is directly filed before the Supreme Court by parties who ignore the wide powers of the High Courts. “Whatever the Supreme Court can do, the High Courts can also do,” Chief Justice Kant pointed out.

Mr. Singhvi said the issue raised in the petitions were not “every matter”, but concerned a Constitutional office-holder, no less than the head of the State government, allegedly indulging in hate speech and communal incitement.

The CJI said High Courts would be demoralised with petitions bypassing them to come straight to the Supreme Court.

“But such people [Sarma] demoralise the country… His speeches and conduct are a brazen attack on the ethos of the country and the sanctity of his Constitutional office. The Supreme Court is not barred from taking a petition directly under Article 32 of the Constitution. It is the discretion of the Supreme Court,” Mr. Singhvi submitted.

The Chief Justice said it would be convenient for both parties to move Gauhati High Court while Mr. Singhvi pointed out that “convenience” was a low threshold to refuse a public interest petition highlighting an issue of such a nature.

Chief Justice Kant urged the petitioners to have faith in the “system”.