Today, On 10th February, The Supreme Court said political disputes frequently reach its halls while examining a plea alleging hate speech by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. CJI Surya Kant remarked elections are often fought in Court while noting the issue.
The Supreme Court observed that political disputes are frequently resolved within its halls.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria made this comment while considering a petition alleging hate speech by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
Advocate Nizam Pasha on behalf of the petitioner, argued,
“My lord, there is a plea against hate speech by a member of a political party. There is a video now by the Chief Minister taking a shot at the minorities, etc.,”
The CJI responded,
“The problem is when elections come, it is often fought here in the Supreme Court only. We will see,”
The petition, initiated by Communist Party of India leader Annie Raja, objects to a speech made by CM Sarma on January 27.
In that speech, Sarma claimed that “four to five lakh Miyan voters” would be stricken from the electoral rolls and asserted that “Hemant Biswa Sarma and the BJP are directly against Miyans.”
The term “Miyan” is a pejorative term used to refer to Muslims.
Previously, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind also approached the Court regarding Sarma’s remarks. Their submissions contend that hate speech aimed at religious communities and figures constitutes a serious constitutional violation.
They argued,
“Such speech not only harms the sensibilities and emotions of the followers of those personalities, but also seriously affects public order in the social sphere and also the overall moral compass of the society at large, which is highly diverse and religious,”
The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind further highlighted a concerning trend in public discourse where dominant voices label a segment of citizens, particularly Muslims, with derogatory terms such as “jallad,” “ghuspaithiya,” “anti-nationals,” “jihadis,” “mullahs,” “ghaddar,” “atankis,” “sleeper cells,” “stone-pelters,” “mian,” and “katua.”
They asserted that these expressions fall outside the realm of neutral or academic dialogue, emphasizing that the courts must scrutinize such language in its public context.
Case Title: Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind v. Union of India
Click Here to Read More Reports On CM Himanta Biswa