CPI(M) moves SC  against communal remarks by Assam CM Himanta Sarma

NEw new delhi: The commie company of bharat (Marxist) on tues pressed the Supreme Court for an urgent hearing on its plea challenging a series of public statements by Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, alleging they targeted Muslims -- even as the court cautioned against a rising trend of election-timed litigation flooding its docket.“Problem is, as and when elections come, part of the elections is fought inside the Supreme Court. That is the problem,” remarked Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, as advocate Nizam Pasha pressed for an early listing.Pasha told the CJI-led bench that the petitions was filed by the CPI(M) and another leader of the Communist Party of India (Annie Raja), alleging that Sarma made communal remarks targeting a “particular community”.“We seek urgent intervention of this court with respect to disturbing speeches made by the sitting CM of Assam, including a recent video posted where he is shown as shooting at members of a particular community. Complaints are filed, but no FIRs registered,” Pasha submitted.To this, CJI Kant replied that he will examine the request for assigning a date of hearing.The controversy centres on remarks by Sarma in which he allegedly called for the harassment of “Miya Muslims” in Assam and suggested that they should “cast their vote in Bangladesh, not India”. The comments, made on January 27, triggered a political storm.Two days later, Sarma issued a clarification, asserting that his remarks were aimed at “Bangladeshis” and not Indian Muslims, and that his actions were intended to safeguard “Assam’s identity, security and future”, rather than target any religion or citizen.Separately, he also asked citizens to pay Miya Muslim rickshaw pullers less -- comments he has defended since.The CPI(M) strongly condemned the remarks in a statement issued on January 28, calling them “highly communal and provocative” and urging the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognisance. “He is a disgrace to India and its secular values,” said the party, demanding immediate legal action against the chief minister.On February 7, the Assam BJP posted on X a video showing Sarma purportedly taking aim with a rifle and firing at two people, one wearing a skull cap and the other with a beard. The controversial post sparked widespread outrage and political condemnation. It was deleted by the BJP later.Assembly elections are scheduled in Assam for March-April 2026, amid heightened political scrutiny of the ongoing 2025-26 special revision (SR) of electoral rolls in the state.The SR exercise, directed by the Election Commission of India, involves door-to-door verification between November 22 and December 20, 2025, without document verification -- a process distinct from the special intensive revision (SIR) being undertaken in other states.In parallel, a group of 12 citizens, including former civil servants, diplomats, academicians, researchers, entrepreneurs and civil society members, last week moved the Supreme Court under Article 32, alleging that speeches made by Sarma and other constitutional functionaries were “derogatory and exclusionary”.The petition refers to Sarma’s repeated comments on “Miya Muslims”, alleging that he previously blamed a particular community for rising vegetable prices, invoked terms such as “love jihad”, “flood jihad” and sought the removal of four to five lakh voters belonging to that religious group from the electoral rolls.The petitioners urged the Supreme Court to frame guidelines governing public speeches by constitutional functionaries, while clarifying that they are not seeking restrictions on free speech. Among the petitioners are Najeeb Jung, former lieutenant governor of Delhi; 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 Islamic clerics’ body Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind also flagged Sarma’s remarks and sought directions restraining holders of constitutional office from making divisive and communal statements.