Only for publicity: Supreme Court rejects plea against Himanta Sarma gun video

The Supreme Court on Monday strongly reprimanded the petitioner for approaching it directly -- instead of going to High Court -- seeking action against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over his anti-'Miya Muslim' remarks and a controversial gun video.

The bench headed by the Chief Justice observed that the court was increasingly being turned into a "political battleground", and urged parties to uphold constitutional morality in the run-up to elections.

"What stops you from going to the High Court? Unless you say the High Court has also become a political battleground?" Chief Justice Surya Kant asked.

When senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the matter involved fundamental constitutional questions and sought a special probe against the Chief Minister, the court responded: "So you’re saying the HC can’t set up an SIT?".

The bench noted that petitions of this nature often reach the Supreme Court whenever elections approach in different states, calling it an unfortunate trend.

"Unfortunately, whenever elections start coming, there are cases. We request all parties that self-restraint must be there. We expect all to act as per constitutional morality," the Chief Justice said.

Himanta Sarma has courted controversy with a series of remarks targeting 'Miya Muslims' -- a term often used to refer to Bengali-origin Muslims in Assam. While the Chief Minister claims he is addressing the issue of illegal immigration, critics argue that the comments amount to hate speech and incite attacks against the community.

The row intensified after a video circulated on social media purportedly showing him handling a firearm, with Muslims visible on the other side, prompting opposition leaders and activists to question the conduct of a sitting Chief Minister and seek legal action.

The Supreme Court stressed that if the petitioner wanted action against an individual, the High Courts were fully empowered to do so.

"Please don’t undermine our constitutional High Courts. Every matter lands up here. We have already deprived our High Courts of cases by setting up various tribunals. You don’t allow judges to learn environmental law, commercial law, and now these cases," the Chief Justice continued.

The bench further underscored that litigants must follow the constitutionally prescribed route. It noted that Article 226, which empowers High Courts to issue writs, remains a key pillar of access to justice.

Advocate Singhvi contended that the Chief Minister was "demoralising the constitutional ethos of the country" and that no case had been registered so far.

To this, the Chief Justice reiterated: "Go to the High Court then. The entire effort is to undermine and demoralise the High Courts. A calculated move to demoralise the High Court".

The bench further observed that the petitioners were "casting serious aspersions on the High Court," adding that parties could approach the Supreme Court if a High Court failed to decide a matter affecting the country’s fabric, but the first forum must ordinarily be the High Court.

The court expressed confidence that the High Courts would act in line with principles laid down by the Supreme Court in multiple judgments.

- Ends

Tune In