The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain petitions seeking action against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over a viral video purportedly showing him taking aim and firing a rifle at individuals from a particular community, and directed the petitioners to approach the Gauhati High Court.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi said the grievances should first be raised before the jurisdictional High Court and asked the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court to ensure an expeditious hearing of the matter.
“Why haven’t you gone to the Gauhati High Court? Don’t undermine its authority… This is becoming a trend just before the polls,” the bench observed, adding that parties should exercise restraint and remain within the bounds of constitutional morality.
The Court expressed concern over what it described as a growing tendency to directly approach the apex court in politically sensitive matters, remarking that “every matter ends up here,” and noting that High Courts should not be bypassed.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for some of the petitioners, submitted that Sarma was a “habitual and repeat offender” and urged the Court to entertain the pleas.
Advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for CPI and CPI(M) leaders, also pressed for intervention, alleging that an independent investigation was unlikely if the matter remained within the state.
The petitions sought registration of FIRs against Sarma for alleged hate speech and communal polarisation, and requested the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the incident.
The controversy stems from a video shared on February 7 by the Assam BJP’s official X handle, purportedly showing Sarma aiming and firing a rifle at two individuals, one wearing a skull cap and the other with a beard. The post drew sharp political criticism and was later deleted following allegations that it promoted communal hatred.
Separate pleas were filed by CPI(M), CPI leader Annie Raja, and others seeking criminal action against the Chief Minister and directions to curb divisive remarks by persons holding constitutional office.
The bench noted that it had earlier, on February 10, agreed to consider listing one of the pleas but reiterated that the appropriate forum for adjudication at the first instance was the Gauhati High Court.
While declining to entertain the petitions, the Court underscored the importance of respecting the constitutional role of High Courts and directed that the matter be heard without delay.
