New Delhi, 16 February. The Supreme Court refused to hear hate speech petitions filed over Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s alleged ‘Miya Muslim’ statements and the viral video on social media. The bench of Chief Justice (CJI) Justice Surya Kant asked the petitioners to approach the Assam High Court and directed the Chief Justice of Assam High Court to hear the case on priority.
Top court asks petitioners to approach Assam High Court
During the hearing of the case in the apex court on Monday, senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, said who will give the SIT report against the ‘boss’ of Assam? He claimed that Sarma is a habitual criminal, violating the oath of the Constitution and till now no FIR has been registered against him. Singhvi cited seven such cases where the Supreme Court had ordered action.
CJI Suryakant made strict remarks
While hearing the petition filed by Communist Party of India and CPI leader Annie Raja against the hate speech and ‘Miya Muslim’ related comments against CM Himanta Biswa Sarma, Justice Surya Kant raised strong questions on the intention of the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court directly.
Article 32 directly under Coming to SC is undermining the powers of the High Court.
The top court said that as soon as the elections begin, the tendency to make this court a political arena is increasing. The Chief Justice clarified that coming here directly under Article 32 is undermining the powers of the High Court. He said, ‘This case has been filed here only for the benefit of senior lawyers. First go to the High Court. We have to deal with our arrears. You are trying to weaken and demoralize the High Courts.
Why do you underestimate the powers and jurisdiction of the High Court??
He asked Singhvi, ‘Why do you underestimate the powers and jurisdiction of the High Court? What does it mean to come directly to the Supreme Court? Please tell us what is your intention behind coming here directly?
Singhvi said – CM is violating his oath
Singhvi said, ‘Himant has given statement in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh along with Assam. These are basic questions to those who take the oath of the Constitution, so we have come straight here. He is a constitutional post holder who is violating his oath. He also said that if action is not taken, fundamental rights will be violated.
When Singhvi said that the Assam High Court cannot take action against the CM, hence he should be allowed to approach any other High Court, the CJI rejected it outright and said, ‘This is an unfortunate argument, which I completely reject.’
Apart from Singhvi, senior lawyer CU Singh argued that many eminent citizens had written letters to the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court requesting to take suo motu cognizance, but no action was taken. On this the CJI said that writing a letter is a different thing, you file a writ petition, there you have the right to be heard. In the end, the court disposed of the petition by allowing the petitioners to approach the High Court and asked them not to mistrust the powers of the High Court.
Comments are closed.