What Are the Implications of Left Parties’ Legal Move Against Himanta Sarna on Hate Speech? 

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Annie Raja, a national leader of the Communist Party of India, have moved the Supreme Court seeking urgent judicial intervention against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, alleging that his recent public statements and visual messaging amount to hate speech, incitement to violence, and a serious abuse of constitutional office. Former Politburo member Subhashini Ali is the petitioner from the CPIM in the petition against Assam Chief Minister.

The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with senior advocate Nizam Pasha appearing for the petitioners. Pasha submitted that the speeches attributed to the sitting Chief Minister were neither stray remarks nor political exaggeration, but part of a continuing pattern of conduct that targets a particular community while emanating from the highest executive authority in the State.

Drawing the Court’s attention to a recently circulated video posted by Sarma himself, Pasha said the Chief Minister is seen theatrically enacting the shooting of members of a specific community. According to the petitioners, such conduct goes far beyond rhetorical speech and enters the realm of explicit incitement, particularly when performed by a constitutional functionary who exercises control over the police and administrative machinery of the State.

The petition contends that the alleged statements attract criminal liability under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), which penalises acts promoting enmity between different groups, as well as Section 295A IPC (now Section 299 BNS), which criminalises deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. The alleged conduct is also stated to fall within Sections 505(1)(b) and 505(2) IPC (now Section 353 BNS), which deal with statements conducing to public mischief and promoting hatred or ill-will between classes of citizens.

According to the petitioners, multiple formal complaints invoking these provisions have already been submitted to the police. However, no First Information Reports have been registered so far. This failure, the petition argues, violates the mandatory duty of the police under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) and highlights the structural impossibility of securing impartial enforcement when the alleged offender is the Chief Minister himself.

The petitioners have urged the Supreme Court to intervene to prevent what they describe as institutional paralysis. They argue that when hate speech allegations involve a sitting Chief Minister, inaction by the police cannot be treated as mere delay but must be viewed as a breakdown of constitutional accountability.

The issues raised in the petition are governed by a settled line of Supreme Court jurisprudence, including decisions in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan, Amish Devgan, and Shaheen Abdulla, which deal with hate speech, the heightened responsibility of public functionaries, and the mandatory duty of the police to act. Taken together, these rulings underscore that political speech does not enjoy constitutional immunity when it vilifies communities or carries the potential to incite hostility or violence, particularly when delivered from positions of state power.

Framing the matter as one of constitutional governance rather than partisan contestation, the CPI(M) and CPI have sought directions to ensure registration of FIRs, an independent and effective investigation, and a clear judicial reaffirmation that chief ministers and elected executives are subject to the same criminal law standards as any other citizen. The petition warns that normalising such conduct from holders of public office risks eroding secularism, equality before law, and public confidence in the rule of law itself.