NEW DELHI: The Communist Party of India (Marxist) on Tuesday pressed the Supreme Court for an urgent hearing on its plea challenging a series of public statements by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Viswa Sharma, alleging that they targeted Muslims – even as the court warned against a growing trend of election-time cases flooding its docket.
CPI(M) has appealed to SC against Sarma’s communal remarks”The problem is, when the election comes, some part of the election is fought inside the Supreme Court. That’s the problem,” remarked Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, as advocate Nizam Pasha pressed for the preliminary list.
Pasha told the CJI-led bench that the petitions were filed by the CPI(M) and another leader of the Communist Party of India (Anni Raja), alleging that Sarma had made communal remarks targeting a “particular community”.
“We seek urgent intervention of this court regarding the disturbing speech made by the sitting Chief Minister of Assam, posting a recent video in which he is shown firing on members of a particular community. Complaints have been filed, but no FIR has been registered,” Pasha submitted.
To this, CJI Kant replied that he would examine the request for fixing the date of hearing.
More Read
The controversy centered on Sarma’s comments in which he called out the “Miya Muslims” of Assam for harassment and suggested that they “should cast their votes in Bangladesh and not in India”. The comments, made on January 27, created a political storm.
Two days later, Sarma issued a clarification, insisting that his comments were not aimed at “Bangladeshis” and Indian Muslims, and that his actions were intended to protect the “identity, security and future of Assam”, without targeting any religion or nationality.
Separately, he asked citizens to pay less to Muslim rickshaw pullers — comments he has since defended.
More Read
The CPI(M) in a statement issued on January 28 strongly condemned the comments, terming them “highly communal and provocative” and urged the Supreme Court to take suo motu consideration. “He is an insult to India and its secular values,” the party said, demanding immediate legal action against the chief minister.
On February 7, the Assam BJP posted a video on X showing Sarma allegedly aiming a rifle and shooting two men, one wearing a skullcap and the other with a beard. The controversial post sparked widespread outrage and political condemnation. Later BJP deleted it.
Assembly elections in Assam are scheduled for March-April 2026, amid heightened political scrutiny over the ongoing 2025-26 Special Revision (SR) of the electoral roll in the state.
The SR exercise, conducted by the Election Commission of India, involves door-to-door verification between November 22 and December 20, 2025, without document verification — a process different from the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) undertaken in other states.
In parallel, a group of 12 citizens, including former civil servants, diplomats, academics, researchers, entrepreneurs and civil society members, petitioned the Supreme Court under Article 32 last week, alleging that the speeches made by Sarma and other constitutional officers were “insulting and exclusionary”.
The petition referred to Sarma’s repeated comments about “Miya Muslim”, alleged that he had earlier blamed a particular community for the rise in vegetable prices, invoked terms like “love jihad”, “flood jihad” and sought to remove four to five lakh voters belonging to that religious group from the electoral roll.
The petitioners urged the Supreme Court to frame guidelines governing public speeches by constitutional activists, while clarifying that they are not seeking restrictions on freedom of speech. Among the petitioners are former Lt. Governor of Delhi Najeeb Jung; Roop Rekha Verma, former Vice-Chancellor and Professor of Philosophy; Mohammad Adeeb, former Rajya Sabha MP and president of Indian Muslims for Civil Rights; and Harsh Mander, former IAS officer and activist
A separate petition filed by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, an organization of Islamic scholars, also flagged Sarma’s remarks and sought directions to prevent constitutional office holders from making divisive and communal statements.
