What Happened
- The Gauhati High Court issued notice to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma in response to a batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) alleging hate speech targeting the Miya Muslim community.
- Petitioners include Assamese scholar Dr. Hiren Gohain, former Assam DGP Harekrishna Deka, the Indian National Congress, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist).
- The PILs allege that the CM instructed citizens to underpay Miya service providers — specifically citing an instance where he allegedly told people to pay four rupees instead of five for a rickshaw ride.
- The court described such tendencies as "fissiparous" (tending to create divisions) and has called for replies from the respondents before the next hearing on April 21, 2026.
- The petitioners have invoked Sections 196, 197, and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, relating to promoting enmity between communities, imputations prejudicial to national integration, and statements causing public mischief.
- The court is also considering whether a Special Investigation Team (SIT) is needed to probe the allegations.
Static Topic Bridges
The Miya Community and the Assam Citizenship Crisis
The term "Miya" historically refers to Bengali-speaking Muslim descendants of migrants who moved from present-day Bangladesh (then East Bengal/East Pakistan) to the Brahmaputra Valley during and after the colonial era. Migration was encouraged by British administrators before Partition and considered a matter of internal movement; it became contested after 1947 when Assam became part of India. Over decades, the term evolved from a community self-identifier to a pejorative label used to mark these Muslims as "outsiders," irrespective of legal citizenship status.
- The National Register of Citizens (NRC) final list (published August 2019) excluded approximately 1.9 million people in Assam, many of whom are Bengali-speaking Muslims.
- Between 2021 and 2026, over 22,000 homes were demolished in at least 33 documented eviction operations in Assam, displacing an estimated 1 lakh people.
- The NRC exercise required residents to prove family presence in Assam before March 24, 1971 (the cut-off under the Assam Accord, 1985).
- Community members increasingly reclaim "Miya" as an identity marker, paralleling similar reclamation movements globally.
Connection to this news: The PILs allege that the CM's statements exploit and deepen existing tensions around the Miya identity, transforming a community already vulnerable under NRC proceedings into targets of economic boycott.
Freedom of Speech vs. Hate Speech: The Constitutional Framework
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, this is not absolute — Article 19(2) permits the State to impose "reasonable restrictions" in the interest of, among other things, public order, decency, morality, and the sovereignty and integrity of India.
- India has no standalone hate speech law; instead, provisions are scattered across criminal statutes — previously the Indian Penal Code (now BNS 2023) under Sections 153A, 295A, 505, and the new Sections 196 and 197.
- Section 196 BNS (corresponding to old IPC Section 153A) penalises acts that promote enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.
- The Supreme Court in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014) called for Parliament to enact a comprehensive anti-hate speech law, a recommendation that remains unimplemented.
- The constitutional test for "reasonable restriction" under Article 19(2) was elaborated in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950) — restrictions must be proximate to the harm caused.
Connection to this news: The court's invocation of the "fissiparous tendency" standard aligns with the Article 19(2) test: speech that actively fragments social cohesion and promotes enmity can fall outside constitutional protection and attract criminal liability.
Role of High Courts in PIL Jurisdiction
Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, High Courts have broad writ jurisdiction and can take suo motu cognisance or entertain PILs on matters of public interest. The PIL mechanism, developed judicially in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) and popularised through M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), allows any public-spirited citizen to approach courts when the rights of disadvantaged groups are at stake.
- High Courts can issue all five writs — habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto — under Article 226, making their writ jurisdiction wider than the Supreme Court's under Article 32.
- PILs can be filed even by letter petitions (epistolary jurisdiction), reflecting the Court's commitment to access to justice.
- Courts in PIL matters can issue broad directions including formation of SITs, statutory compliance mandates, and executive accountability orders.
Connection to this news: The Gauhati HC's issuance of notice in PILs filed by civil society actors — including a former senior police official and an academic scholar — follows the established PIL tradition of using courts as a check on executive speech acts that may violate constitutional norms.
Key Facts & Data
- The Gauhati High Court's bench used the term "fissiparous tendency" to characterise divisive public statements that threaten social cohesion.
- Next hearing date: April 21, 2026 (post-Bihu holidays).
- Sections invoked: BNS Sections 196 (promoting enmity), 197 (imputations prejudicial to national integration), 353 (statements causing public mischief).
- The NRC final list (2019) excluded about 1.9 million Assam residents, with a disproportionate impact on Bengali-speaking Muslim communities.
- The Assam Accord (1985), signed between the Rajiv Gandhi government and the All Assam Students' Union (AASU), set March 24, 1971 as the citizenship cut-off for Assam.
- The Miya Museum controversy specifically relates to proposals to set up a museum documenting the cultural heritage of the Miya community, which the state government has opposed.