Guwahati: In a significant legal development that has captured national attention, the Gauhati High Court has officially stepped into the controversy surrounding alleged inflammatory remarks made by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. On Thursday (February 26, 2026), a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury issued notices to the Chief Minister, the State of Assam, the Director General of Police (DGP), and the Union of India.

The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by noted Assamese scholar Dr. Hiren Gohain and others, seeking a restraint on the CM from making further "hate speeches" targeting minority communities, specifically the Bengali-speaking Muslim community (often referred to locally as ‘Miya’ Muslims).

The legal battle reached the High Court after the Supreme Court of India recently directed the petitioners to approach the territorial High Court first. The primary grievance of the petitioners is that despite numerous public videos and records of speeches that allegedly incite communal tension, the Assam Police has failed to register even a single suo motu (on its own motion) First Information Report (FIR).

The petitioners argue that this "inaction" by the law enforcement agencies creates a "climate of impunity," where high-ranking constitutional authorities feel they are above the law. By issuing a notice, the Gauhati High Court has signaled that it will scrutinize whether the Chief Minister has breached his constitutional oath of office.

During the intense hearing, senior advocates including Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, C.U. Singh, and Meenakshi Arora presented a series of arguments highlighting the "habitual nature" of the remarks.

1. Violation of Constitutional Values Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi emphasized that the Chief Minister is bound by the principles of Article 14 (Equality), Article 15 (Non-discrimination), and the Preamble’s commitment to "Secularism and Fraternity." He argued that when a person holding the highest executive office in a state repeatedly targets a specific community, it goes against the very fabric of the Constitution. Singhvi remarked that Mahatma Gandhi’s policy of civil disobedience was being misinterpreted in a way that would make the Father of the Nation "turn in his grave."

2. The 'Miya Muslim' Narrative and 'Dog Whistles' Senior Advocate C.U. Singh brought the court's attention to specific instances dating back to 2023. He noted that the CM has frequently used derogatory terms and "dog whistles" to target the migrant Muslim population. Examples cited included:

Mission Basundhara Remarks: Suggestions that those converted to Islam during the Mughal era could only regain indigenous status by "returning to their original identity."
Flood Jihad: Blaming a private university in Meghalaya for Guwahati’s flooding based on its "Mecca-like" architecture.
Economic Boycott: Alleged statements advising BJP workers to "make Miyas suffer" by paying them less for services like rickshaw rides.

3. Incitement and Law & Order Advocate Meenakshi Arora pointed out the potential for these statements to spark real-world violence. She cited the CM’s comments blaming the ‘Miya’ community for rising vegetable prices and his reported targeting of a Muslim journalist during a press conference based on his religious identity. The argument here is simple: if the head of the state tells citizens to "give trouble" to a specific group, it is an open invitation to a law-and-order crisis.

The PIL seeks action under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the new criminal code that replaced the IPC:

Section 196: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, etc.
Section 197: Imputations or assertions prejudicial to national integration.
Section 353: Statements conducing to public mischief.

The legal team relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Amish Devgan case, which established that police have a duty to lodge FIRs against hate speech by influential personalities without waiting for a formal complaint. They also referenced the recent ‘Ghooskhor Pandit’ movie case, where Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that public figures must not target any community as it violates constitutional morality.

While the petitioners urged the court to pass an immediate "ad-interim" order (a temporary stay) to stop the CM from making further statements, the Bench chose a more measured approach for now. Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar stated, "At this stage, let notices be issued first. It will be a normal restraint while this petition is pending consideration."

The court has scheduled the matter for further hearing in April, following the Bihu holidays. This gives the State and the Chief Minister time to file their official responses to the serious allegations raised in the PIL.

The outcome of this case could set a massive precedent for how "hate speech" by constitutional functionaries is handled in India. The petitioners aren't just asking for an FIR; they are seeking:

An independent SIT (Special Investigation Team) probe.
A commission chaired by a former High Court Judge to monitor the investigation.
A formal declaration that the CM has violated his Constitutional Oath.

For the common citizen, this case highlights a vital question: Can a leader’s political rhetoric cross the line into criminal incitement? As the Gauhati High Court prepares to dive deeper into these "incendiary remarks," the eyes of the legal fraternity and the public remain fixed on Assam.

The Gauhati High Court’s decision to issue notice is the first step in a long legal process. It reinforces the idea that in a democracy, no one—not even a sitting Chief Minister—is exempt from the scrutiny of the law when the harmony of society is at stake. As the proceedings move to April, the focus will be on how the government justifies these statements and whether the judiciary will draw a hard line against communal rhetoric in the political arena.