Supreme Court Told Himanta Biswa Sarma's Speech Constitutes "Aggravated Hate Speech"
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind files submissions citing CM's remarks on "Miyan voters"; seeks end to "pick and choose policy" in hate speech complaints
The Supreme Court was informed on Thursday that Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma's public speech on January 27 amounts to an "aggravated form of hate speech" that undermines constitutional guarantees of equality, fraternity, and secularism.
Senior Advocate MR Shamshad filed written submissions on behalf of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind as part of a hate speech case pending before the apex court since 2021.
Specific Remarks Cited
The submissions highlight that Sarma stated at a public gathering that "four to five lakh Miyan voters" would be removed from electoral rolls and that "Himanta Biswa Sarma and the BJP are directly against Miyans."
According to the petitioners, the term "Miyan" is used to address Muslims in a derogatory manner in the Assam context.
Constitutional Wrong Alleged
The submissions contend that hate speech targeting religious communities constitutes an aggravated constitutional wrong.
"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 petitioners argued.
Pattern of Derogatory Language
The submissions identify a broader pattern of public discourse where dominant voices brand Muslims using expressions including "jallad," "ghuspaithiya," "anti-nationals," "jihadis," "mullahs," "ghaddar," "atankis," "sleeper cells," "stone-pelters," "mian," and "katua."
These terms are not part of neutral or academic discourse and require judicial examination in context, the petitioners submitted.
Relief Sought
The petitioners urged the Court to address what they describe as a "pick and choose policy" in registering hate speech complaints. They seek:
- Mandatory FIR registration per Lalita Kumari judgment
- Time-bound decisions on complaints
- Online filing mechanisms
- Institutional consequences for non-action, including contempt proceedings