NEW DELHI – A group of prominent intellectuals, former civil servants, academics, journalists and public figures have written to the Gauhati High Court, urging it to take suo motu cognisance of repeated instances of hate speech, executive interference, open vilification of Muslims and constitutional violations by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
In a detailed representation addressed to the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court on Thursday, the signatories said they were approaching the court “with profound faith in the constitutional role of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court as guardian of the fundamental rights.”
The letter pointed out that a series of public statements made by the Chief Minister amount to “hate speech, executive intimidation, and open vilification of a particular community commonly referred to as the ‘Miyan’ or Bengal origin Muslim community.”
“These statements, delivered repeatedly in public forums, go far beyond political rhetoric and enter the prohibited constitutional zone of dehumanisation, collective stigmatisation, and threats of state-sponsored harassment,” the representation states.
Scholar Dr. Hiren Gohain, former Assam DGP Harekrishna Deka, former Guwahati Archbishop Thomas Menamparampil, Rajya Sabha MP Ajit Kumar Bhuyan, former IAS officer D.N. Saikia are among the signatories. A copy of the letter is with the The Hindustan Gazette.
The signatories have specifically highlighted a controversial statement made by the Chief Minister, alleging it amounted to instigation of social and economic harm.
The letter quoted the controversial statement made by Sarma in which he had said “Whoever can, in whichever way should make Miyan suffer. If you board a rickshaw, if the fare is ₹5, pay them ₹4.”
According to the representation, such a statement coming from “the highest executive authority of the State” constitutes “a direct call for physical harm, economic discrimination and social humiliation of the Miyan community,” and normalises cruelty while stripping people of their “inherent right to live with dignity as guaranteed under the Constitution.”
Interference in electoral process
The letter also raised alarm over what it calls executive interference in the Special Revision (SR) of electoral rolls. It claims the Chief Minister publicly stated that he had directed BJP party workers to file objections during the SR process, particularly targeting members of the Miyan community.
“This is a grave constitutional impropriety,” the signatories wrote, asserting that a “constitutionally mandated and quasi-judicial process such as the SR cannot be converted into a partisan or communal exercise at the behest of the Chief Minister.”
The representation further alleges that such actions undermine institutional neutrality and violate “the principle of free and fair democratic processes, which form part of the basic structure of the Constitution.”
The signatories argued that the statements violate Article 21 (right to life with dignity) and Article 14 (equality before law), and erode fraternity, a core constitutional value enshrined in the Preamble.
“They also strike direct ly at secularism, which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution,” the letter said.
Citing Supreme Court rulings, including Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, the representation notes that hate speech must be dealt with firmly and that police are duty-bound to register FIRs suo motu, irrespective of the identity or position of the speaker.
“The brazen hate speech of the Assam Chief Minister is prejudicial to national integration and directly promotes enmity between different groups on grounds of religion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, has categorically directed that where instances of hate speech come to the notice of authorities, the police are duty-bound to register FIRs suo motu, irrespective of the identity or position of the speaker, and that failure to do so would invite contempt of court. These directions are binding under Article 141. Where the alleged violator is the Chief Minister himself, the ordinary executive machinery becomes structurally compromised, making judicial intervention indispensable,” it said.
Quoting the apex court, the letter recalled: “Hate speech cannot be tolerated as it leads to loss of dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members, contributes to disharmony amongst groups, and erodes tolerance and open-mindedness.”
Demand for court intervention
The signatories have urged the High Court to direct competent authorities to register cases related to hate speech and executive interference, protect the dignity and security of the affected community, reaffirm constitutional discipline among public functionaries, and uphold public confidence in secular constitutional governance.
“The intervention of this Hon’ble Court is crucial not only for the protection of a vulnerable community but also for preserving the constitutional equilibrium between executive power and fundamental rights,” the letter concludes.
The representation has been signed by over 40 prominent individuals, including scholars, retired IAS officers, former police officials, journalists, artists, scientists and social activists.
In a detailed representation addressed to the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court on Thursday, the signatories said they were approaching the court “with profound faith in the constitutional role of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court as guardian of the fundamental rights.”
The letter pointed out that a series of public statements made by the Chief Minister amount to “hate speech, executive intimidation, and open vilification of a particular community commonly referred to as the ‘Miyan’ or Bengal origin Muslim community.”
“These statements, delivered repeatedly in public forums, go far beyond political rhetoric and enter the prohibited constitutional zone of dehumanisation, collective stigmatisation, and threats of state-sponsored harassment,” the representation states.
Scholar Dr. Hiren Gohain, former Assam DGP Harekrishna Deka, former Guwahati Archbishop Thomas Menamparampil, Rajya Sabha MP Ajit Kumar Bhuyan, former IAS officer D.N. Saikia are among the signatories. A copy of the letter is with the The Hindustan Gazette.
The signatories have specifically highlighted a controversial statement made by the Chief Minister, alleging it amounted to instigation of social and economic harm.
The letter quoted the controversial statement made by Sarma in which he had said “Whoever can, in whichever way should make Miyan suffer. If you board a rickshaw, if the fare is ₹5, pay them ₹4.”
According to the representation, such a statement coming from “the highest executive authority of the State” constitutes “a direct call for physical harm, economic discrimination and social humiliation of the Miyan community,” and normalises cruelty while stripping people of their “inherent right to live with dignity as guaranteed under the Constitution.”
Interference in electoral process
The letter also raised alarm over what it calls executive interference in the Special Revision (SR) of electoral rolls. It claims the Chief Minister publicly stated that he had directed BJP party workers to file objections during the SR process, particularly targeting members of the Miyan community.
“This is a grave constitutional impropriety,” the signatories wrote, asserting that a “constitutionally mandated and quasi-judicial process such as the SR cannot be converted into a partisan or communal exercise at the behest of the Chief Minister.”
The representation further alleges that such actions undermine institutional neutrality and violate “the principle of free and fair democratic processes, which form part of the basic structure of the Constitution.”
The signatories argued that the statements violate Article 21 (right to life with dignity) and Article 14 (equality before law), and erode fraternity, a core constitutional value enshrined in the Preamble.
“They also strike direct ly at secularism, which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution,” the letter said.
Citing Supreme Court rulings, including Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, the representation notes that hate speech must be dealt with firmly and that police are duty-bound to register FIRs suo motu, irrespective of the identity or position of the speaker.
“The brazen hate speech of the Assam Chief Minister is prejudicial to national integration and directly promotes enmity between different groups on grounds of religion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, has categorically directed that where instances of hate speech come to the notice of authorities, the police are duty-bound to register FIRs suo motu, irrespective of the identity or position of the speaker, and that failure to do so would invite contempt of court. These directions are binding under Article 141. Where the alleged violator is the Chief Minister himself, the ordinary executive machinery becomes structurally compromised, making judicial intervention indispensable,” it said.
Quoting the apex court, the letter recalled: “Hate speech cannot be tolerated as it leads to loss of dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members, contributes to disharmony amongst groups, and erodes tolerance and open-mindedness.”
Demand for court intervention
The signatories have urged the High Court to direct competent authorities to register cases related to hate speech and executive interference, protect the dignity and security of the affected community, reaffirm constitutional discipline among public functionaries, and uphold public confidence in secular constitutional governance.
“The intervention of this Hon’ble Court is crucial not only for the protection of a vulnerable community but also for preserving the constitutional equilibrium between executive power and fundamental rights,” the letter concludes.
The representation has been signed by over 40 prominent individuals, including scholars, retired IAS officers, former police officials, journalists, artists, scientists and social activists.