Today, On 16th February, The Supreme Court refused to entertain petitions seeking action against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over a viral ‘shooting’ video. It also asked the Gauhati High Court Chief Justice to prioritise the case for an early hearing.
The Supreme Court declined to consider petitions aimed at taking action against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma concerning a viral video that allegedly shows him aiming and firing a rifle at members of a specific community.
A bench consisting of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi directed the petitioners to bring their concerns to the Gauhati High Court.
The Supreme Court additionally requested the chief justice of the Gauhati High Court to prioritize the hearing on this issue.
The bench expressed concern, stating,
“Why haven’t you gone to the Gauhati High Court? Don’t undermine its authority… Will ask parties to use restraint and remain within the boundaries of constitutional morality, but this is becoming a trend just before the polls.”
The Court ordered.
“All these issues can be effectively adjudicated by the jurisdictional High Court. We see no reason to entertain this here and thus we relegate the petitioner to the jurisdictional High Court. We request the High Court Chief Justice to prioritize the hearing since the counsel have cited urgency in the matter,”
The Court clarified that while it possesses the authority to hear the matter directly, it was not inclined to approve shortcuts that allow petitions to be heard by the Supreme Court before approaching the High Court.
CJI Kant said,
“You have not even gone to the High Court. I am on the shortcut. In our anxiety to invoke one jurisdiction, we cannot undermine the jurisdiction of another. This court cannot become a playground for all this. Any cause of action arising within jurisdiction of that High Court, we are confident that High Court can look into this and decide,”
Senior Advocate CU Singh mentioned that several individuals had already contacted the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court regarding Sarma’s comments. He highlighted that Sarma had made inflammatory statements not only in Assam but also in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand.
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, representing the petitioners, argued that Sarma’s remarks have implications nationally and described him as a “habitual offender,” suggesting that this case warranted Supreme Court intervention.
Nevertheless, the apex court maintained that the issue must first be addressed by the High Court.
CJI Kant remarked,
“Otherwise, won’t it become unmanageable that all these cases come before the Supreme Court? Please go through the channel, trust the HC and let them decide. We can ask the High Court that all petitions be entertained in a prioritized sense of importance … Once you file a plea, you have to be heard.. Suo motu is a prerogative of the Court. Individuals are eminent personalities .. we are not on ideologies. That is what disturbs me when they say they will not touch the High Court. I am confident the High Court can decide all of this,”
However, the top court made it clear from the outset during today’s hearing that it was not inclined to entertain the matter, without the High Court being approached first.
CJI Kant remarked,
“Why have you not gone to the HC? Unless HC also has become a ground for political battle,”
Senior Advocate Singhvi replied,
“This affects the fundamental rights under Article 14, 15 and 21. If this case cannot come here then this court has to determine what is the contour of Article 32 (which allows litigants to directly approach Supreme Court for relief where there is a violation of fundamental rights)? We are seeking a SIT and what SIT in Assam can do against Boss of Assam? There is a list of 17 cases before you where you have ordered this in much weaker,”
The Court then reiterated concerns that such cases are frequently filed on political grounds.
CJI Kant observed,
“We will ask political parties to use restraint and be within the boundaries of constitutional morality. But this is becoming a trend just before the elections,”
Singhvi, however, urged the Court to intervene based on numerous allegations of hate speech against Chief Minister Sarma.
Singhvi said,
“He is a habitual and repeated offender. This would be the ideal case for the Supreme Court to exercise its Article 32 power. There are examples of Bilkis Rasool, Vinod Dua, etc.,”
The Court maintained that the High Court is well-equipped to handle this case.
CJI Kant said ,
“I have been telling this repeatedly that please do not undermine the sanctity of constitutional High Courts. I have seen this trend repeatedly. By establishing judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals, you have already bypassed the High Court. The judges in High Court, who have short tenures, don’t even get to learn environmental law, etc. Please come to us through the constitutional route,”
Singhvi continued to argue that public rights would diminish if the matter goes unheard. He suggested that the case could at least be transferred to a different High Court, considering that the petitions demand action against the State’s sitting Chief Minister.
Singhvi urged,
“If this is not heard, 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 an FIR. In Assam where to file FIR, send me to another HC then,”
The Court outrightly rejected the request.
CJI Kant said,
“It cannot become a convenience forum shopping just because 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 being done. Sending to another HC is a serious aspersion which I outrightly reject .. I have to take care of judicial administration all across the country,”
Further criticizing the move to directly approach the Supreme Court in this matter, without first consulting the High Court, the CJI stated,
“Thanks to the basic structure (doctrine), someone has not been able to amend Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of High Courts), otherwise that would also be done. Only this power is with the High Court now … When we talk of access to justice, Article 226 is created by the same. So that you can go to the nearest High Court and seek justice. We are not saying we don’t have jurisdiction.. if you don’t succeed, come here.”
They noted that it is troubling that many matters are being brought to them, leading to a depletion of high courts’ resources for cases related to environmental and commercial issues.
During the proceedings, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi argued that Sarma has a history of repeated offenses and asked the court to take up the matter. On February 10, the Supreme Court agreed to consider a plea from Left leaders seeking action against Sarma.
With the Assam Assembly elections approaching, the Supreme Court remarked that portions of the electoral process seem to be transpiring within its walls.
The court took into account the comments made by lawyer Nizam Pasha, representing several CPI and CPI(M) leaders against Sarma, and indicated it would consider moving forward with the plea.
Earlier, On February 7, a video surfaced showing Sarma aiming a rifle and shooting at two individuals one with a skull cap and the other bearded shared by the Assam BJP on its official X handle.
This controversial post led to widespread backlash and political condemnation, prompting the BJP to delete it due to accusations of inciting violence and fostering communal tensions.
Separate requests have been submitted by CPI(M) and CPI leader Annie Raja, calling for FIRs to be registered against Sarma for alleged hate speech intended to polarize communities.
They have also sought the establishment of a special investigation team (SIT) due to concerns about the potential for independent inquiries from state or central agencies.
The chronologically listed pleas cite provocative speeches and statements made by Sarma.
Additionally, an earlier petition from 12 individuals requested directions to curb divisive remarks from those in constitutional positions.
Case Title: ANNIE RAJA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS, W.P.(Crl.) No. 72/2026 (and connected cases)
Click Here to Read More Reports On CM Himanta Biswa