3 months ago
1
The Gauhati High Court connected Thursday (February 26, 2026) issued a announcement to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma aft proceeding multiple petitions seeking enactment against him for alleged hatred speeches targeting Muslims whom the Chief Minister addresses arsenic the ‘miya’ community.
Miya is simply a pejorative word commonly utilized successful Assam to notation to Bengali-speaking oregon Bengali-origin Muslims. The Chief Minister has gone connected grounds to accidental that the connection means “illegal immigrants”.
A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, heard elder advocates representing the petitioners and directed that notices beryllium served to the Chief Minister, arsenic good arsenic the Central and the Assam governments. The adjacent proceeding is scheduled for April 21.
The petitioners see the Congress party, Assamese student Hiren Gohain, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist), who had initially approached the Supreme Court. The apex tribunal advised them to spell to the precocious court.
Reining successful 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 successful Assam. They pointed to a video (now deleted) shared connected X showing the Chief Minister symbolically shooting astatine radical wearing skull caps and told the tribunal astir his reported plans to manipulate the voters’ list, an alleged menace to restrict voting rights, and a telephone for an economical boycott of the community.
Mr. Singhvi argued that Mr. Sarma’s repeated statements reflected a “habitual signifier of incitement” and were not successful keeping with his duties arsenic the caput of the State. Ms. Arora made a akin argument, citing instances wherever the Chief Minister discouraged students from attending institutions founded by radical from number communities. They argued that specified remarks violated law principles, including the secular mandate and provisions of equality enshrined successful the Preamble, and could endanger instrumentality and order.
The tribunal observed that the statements cited by the petitioners appeared to amusement a “fissiparous tendency” but said it would analyse each submissions earlier drafting a conclusion.
