The Supreme Court has declined to hear petitions seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe and a First Information Report (FIR) against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma concerning alleged discriminatory remarks, including his use of the term “Miya” to describe a community, and other material deemed hate speech on social media.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant directed the petitioners to pursue an expeditious hearing in the relevant High Court instead. “Various directions against officials are sought… In our considered view, all these issues need to be effectively adjudicated by the jurisdictional High Court. Consequently, without expressing any opinion, the petitioner are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court. Since the pertinent authorities have urged the court that the matter requires urgent attention, we request the Chief Justice of the jurisdictional High Court to afford expeditious hearing,” the Court stated.
The Supreme Court further instructed petitioners not to undermine the powers of the High Courts and noted that they could return to the apex court if dissatisfied with the relief granted.
The matter was initiated by a plea filed by Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind, an organisation of Indian Muslims and Muslim scholars, challenging remarks made by the Assam Chief Minister, specifically his use of the term “Miya” to describe Muslims during a speech on 27 January 2026. The plea, submitted by Jamiat President Maulana Mahmood Madani, argued that “the term ‘Miya’ is a derogatory reference to Muslims, and when such a reference is made by a person occupying a high-constitutional office, it cannot be dismissed as political rhetoric or free speech.”
According to a press release by the organisation, “Instead, they amount to a deliberate attempt to spread hatred, create hostility, and stigmatise an entire community.”
The plea called on the Supreme Court to establish regulatory guidelines for constitutional functionaries to prevent the use of their positions to promote communal hatred, incite public animosity, or vilify any group.
The petition highlighted the Assam Chief Minister’s statement that four to five lakh “Miya” voters would be removed from electoral rolls and that he and his party were “directly against the Miya community.” It noted that the term “Miya” is commonly used in Assam as a derogatory reference to Muslims.
Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind further submitted that statements of this nature contravene constitutional values such as equality, fraternity, secularism, and human dignity, and thus have no protection under the right to freedom of speech. The organisation also expressed concern that similar speeches against the Muslim community have persisted despite repeated suo motu orders from the Supreme Court to curb hate speech.
The plea requested the establishment of guidelines to ensure that no individual is above constitutional norms. It stated, “Considering the recent speech delivered on January 27, 2026 in Assam by a person [in] a constitutional position… this Hon’ble Court must consider some regulatory guidelines to keep a check on persons holding constitutional positions, delivering speeches which are communal in nature targeting/vilifying/demonizing communities by giving speech which in a given context of the speaker ‘primarily carries no other meaning other than hatred, hostility and ill will. This collective to ensure that nobody is above the constitutional norms shall ensure the basics of Rule of law.”
The case was filed through Advocate Farrukh Rasheed, with written submissions prepared by Senior Advocate MR Shamshad.