The Supreme Court declined to hear a plea seeking action against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma over his alleged ‘Miya’ remarks, calling direct petitions before elections a “disturbing trend.” The Court directed petitioners to approach the Guwahati High Court instead.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea seeking criminal action and a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over his alleged “Miya” remarks and a controversial video. The Court strongly criticised the growing practice of directly approaching it before elections and asked the petitioners to first move the Guwahati High Court.
The matter was heard by a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi. The Court made it clear that High Courts should not be bypassed and said that repeatedly filing such petitions in the Supreme Court weakens the authority of constitutional courts at the state level.
The plea had sought directions to register a police case and to form an SIT against the Assam Chief Minister for alleged hate speech. The controversy relates to a video reportedly released by the Assam unit of the BJP, which allegedly showed the Chief Minister firing at a photograph of Muslims. The plea also referred to his remarks about “Miyas”, a term often used for Bengali-speaking Muslims in Assam.
While refusing to entertain the petition, the Court orally observed that political parties must act responsibly. It reminded them to
“act within the boundaries of constitutional morality”.
At the same time, the bench expressed concern that the Supreme Court was increasingly being made the first forum of litigation, especially ahead of elections.
The bench remarked,
“But this (approaching of the Supreme Court directly) is becoming a trend just before elections,”
noting that Assam is likely to hold Assembly elections in March or April.
The petitioners argued that they had written a letter to the Chief Justice of the Guwahati High Court seeking suo motu action, but no proceedings were initiated. However, the Supreme Court clarified that writing a letter is not the same as filing a formal petition and again directed them to approach the High Court.
Chief Justice Surya Kant strongly said,
“Don’t undermine the validity of our high courts. You are demoralising the (Guwahati) High Court,”
making it clear that High Courts are fully competent to deal with such matters.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the Supreme Court has discretionary powers under Article 32 of the Constitution to directly hear such matters. He stressed that the demand was for a court-monitored SIT investigation.
Responding to the Chief Justice’s observation about demoralising the High Court, Singhvi said the Assam Chief Minister is
“demoralising the Constitution and entire community”.
He further submitted,
“If this is not heard then the rights of people will be diminished. This is the sitting Chief Minister who is asking for land not to be given… we are seeking a police case,”
while also expressing concerns about filing an FIR in Assam.
He added,
“Send me to another High Court then.”
Emphasising constitutional protections, Singhvi argued,
“This (case) affects fundamental rights under Article 14 (right to equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty),”
Singhvi said,
“If this case cannot come here, then this court has to determine contour of Article 32 (right to move the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights). We are seeking a SIT… but what can any SIT do in Assam against boss of Assam.”
He also claimed,
“He (Chief Minister Sarma) is a habitual and repeat offender… this would be the ideal case for the Supreme Court to exercise its Article 32 power.”
However, the Supreme Court was not convinced. The Chief Justice firmly observed,
“The Supreme Court can’t be a convenience forum (for) shopping… just because all senior lawyers are based here. There are good lawyers there as well. The entire effort is to undermine the authority of the High Courts and this is a calculated effort.”
Rejecting the suggestion of transferring the case to another High Court, the Chief Justice added,
“Sending you to another High Court is a serious aspersion (on the Guwahati High Court) which I outrightly reject. I have to take care of judicial administration all across the country.”
Earlier, the petition had also been filed by Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind through its chief Maulana Mahmood Madani. The organisation argued that the term “Miya” is derogatory and that when such statements are made by a person holding a high constitutional office, they cannot be treated as mere political speech.
With this order, the Supreme Court has once again clarified that Article 32 powers are extraordinary and that litigants must first approach the appropriate High Court. The ruling highlights the Court’s concern over forum shopping and reinforces the constitutional balance between the Supreme Court and High Courts in India’s judicial system.
Click Here to Read More Reports On CM Himanta Biswa
