New Delhi: The Supreme Court has declined to directly hear a batch of petitions seeking registration of FIRs and constitution of a Special Investigation Team against the Assam Chief Minister over alleged hate speech.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N.V. Anjaria, directed the petitioners to approach the Gauhati High Court, emphasizing that jurisdictional High Courts are the appropriate forums to consider such matters. The Bench also requested that the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court ensure an expeditious hearing of the case.
The petitions were filed by multiple parties, including CPI leader Annie Raja, the Islamic organization Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, and a group of former civil servants and diplomats. They alleged that the Chief Minister engaged in communal and exclusionary rhetoric targeting “Miya Muslims” and Bengali-origin Muslims in Assam. According to the petitioners, certain remarks — allegedly including calls for economic boycotts and removal of voters during electoral roll revisions — amounted to a breach of constitutional obligations and posed a threat to social harmony.
Among the incidents cited was a speech in which the Chief Minister allegedly referred to removing a significant number of “Miya” voters during electoral roll revision. The petitioners also pointed to a controversial video posted on the official handle of the Assam BJP that purportedly depicted the Chief Minister firing a rifle at figures shown with skull caps and beards. Though the video was later deleted, the petitioners argued that it signalled incitement and discriminatory intent.
Appearing for some petitioners, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal urged the Court to exercise its powers under Article 32 of the Constitution, contending that the allegations involved a sitting Chief Minister and required an independent investigation. Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that despite formal complaints, no FIRs had been registered, which, according to the petitioners, reflected executive inaction.
The Supreme Court, however, expressed concern over the growing practice of directly invoking its jurisdiction without first approaching the High Courts. The Bench observed that constitutional courts at the State level are fully competent to adjudicate such matters and cautioned against bypassing them, particularly in politically sensitive contexts. It rejected suggestions that the Gauhati High Court would be unable to address the issues impartially and reiterated confidence in the High Court’s constitutional role.
Disposing of the petitions, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies before the Gauhati High Court. It refrained from issuing broader observations at this stage, underscoring that established judicial channels must be respected before matters are escalated to the apex court.
Case Title: Annie Raja v. Union of India & Ors. | W.P. (Crl.) No. 72/2026 (and connected cases)
