Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma's ‘Miyan voters’ remark flagged before Supreme Court as hate speech

The Supreme Court on Thursday was told that a public speech delivered by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on January 27 amounts to an aggravated form of hate speech that undermines the constitutional guarantees of equality, fraternity and secularism. [Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind v. Union of India].In written submissions filed by Senior Advocate MR Shamshad on behalf of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, it has been pointed out that Sarma stated at a public gathering that “four to five lakh Miyan voters” would be removed from the electoral rolls and that “Hemant Biswa Sarma and the BJP are directly against Miyans”. .The written submissions were filed as part of the hate speech case pending before the Supreme Court since 2021.According to the submissions, the term “Miyan” is used to address Muslims in a derogatory manner. Placing the Assam Chief Minister’s remarks in context, the submissions state that hate speech targeting religious communities and religious personalities 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," it has been contended..The petitioners have stated that there is a broader pattern of public discourse in which dominant voices brand a section of citizens, predominantly Muslims, using expressions such as “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 courts are required to examine such language in the context in which it is deployed in the public domain, it has been submitted..The petitioners have urged the Court to address what they describe as a “pick and choose policy” in the registration of hate speech complaints. They have sought directions mandating registration in line with Lalita Kumari judgment, time-bound decisions on complaints, online modes of filing and institutional consequences for non-action, including contempt of court and disciplinary proceedings..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.