The petitions filed in the Supreme Court claiming to seek FIR against the Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on account of allegedly hate speech were at first referred to the Gauhati High Court. Judiciary headed by CJI, Surya Kant, indicated a tendency of open apex court candidacies in the elections, and would no longer allow it to become a political platform. This is a decision of 16 February 2026 that emphasizes judicial superiority in the context of poll buildup that was alleged in Assam in 2026.

​Viral Video and Allegations

CPI(M), CPI leader Annie Raja and four Assamese petitioners were against the speeches of Sarma and a controversial animated video. A video that went viral on social media had Sarma pointing a rifle at two inflammatory rhetoric Muslims. Yachikaas accused it of being provocative to the Miya people of Bangladesh origin who were not only slandered as Bangladeshi, but also their economic endeavors were boycotted.

Sarma had previously aired accusations in terms of flood jihad and community profiling. The petitioners argued that the Assam police would not grant permission on the ground of prejudice that would compel SIT investigation on FIRs. They also quoted speeches in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh and this made it pan-Indian. Nothing has been registered in the name of FIRs as championed by such advocates like Abhishek Singhvi.

The article that was later taken down due to its backlash highlighted the rising AI deepfakes in politics. The critics linked it with BJP, the IT cell of which had not been established. The constitutional leaders were restrained by curbs on divisive talk by the SC by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind individually.

SC’s Firm Rebuff

The judge bench of CJI Kant commented: This court is a political battle field whenever it is time to vote. It discarded short-cut methods and insisted that it was the High Courts that were better placed to make judgments on issues that were beyond SC due to Article 226. The CJI recommended to give deference to the High Court, place faith in the system and request Gauhati HC CJ to expeditiously hear.

​

The petitioners were against inaction of state machinery and SC was interested in procedure. It stated that it was not allowed to weaken High Courts, and sent three pleas, 2 Left parties, 1 local to Gauhati HC. Constitutive morality and restraint ought to be exercised by parties prior to polls.

Political Context in Assam

The choice is taken several weeks before 2026 Assembly elections of Assam, and Sarma, the BJP candidate is opposing Congress-AGP coalition and other regional parties. Hindutva vote of Sarma is violent and it targets 40 percent of Muslim voters that he blames with illegal immigration. The hate speech of opposition is used to unify minorities; BJP is preaching the legal disapproval of intruders.

The reports tell that Sarma is being threatened with hundreds of labels of hate speech, over three a day in 2025, and nothing is done. AIMIM Asaduddin Owais struck through evading SC; Congress Gaurav Gogoi listened to the paranoia of the party. BJP justifies: not vitriol but discourse.

Assam embittered following 2024 NRC-CAA clashes; Miya poetry is flourishing as a vengeance. The rhetoric by Sarma adds 86/126 of BJP seats in 2021 and it has probabilities of backlash in 126 seats because of polarization.

Implications of poll Discourse.

SC order stays the immediate reprieve, though lightens the judicial exhaustion of litigation of the poll time. The HC in Gauhati has now been provided with the key will it either order FIR or probe? Precedent warns about SC as last resort, which creates constructed recourse.

Breither supports the campaign in development, evictions. Says critics, it is impunity, to proponents, free speech. As the videos related to AI are spreading, there is a growing demand to regulate them without any discussion.

HC battle is suggesting anti-oppression gears, which is considering the minority turnout. BJP urges individuals to be restrained, but Sarma does not change his way. Conclusion becomes even stronger: procedure, rhetoric enforced by courts, the voter. The Assam elections put a test on the hate speech boundaries against democracy.