A Delhi court has issued notice to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and the Delhi Police in a plea filed by activist Harsh Mander seeking an FIR against the BJP leader for his alleged “inflammatory hate speech” and remarks over “miya” voters made in January this year.

Additional Sessions Judge Sonu Agnihotri was hearing a revision petition against the order dismissing Mander’s application to register a First Information Report (FIR) against CM Himanta Biswa Sarma.

“Counsel for Petitioner further drew my attention to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Zero FIR and E-FIR issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, filed by Petitioner on record with the revision petition. In view of submissions made by Counsel for Petitioner, issue notice of revision petition to Respondents on filing of appropriate PF / Speed Post for 15.07.2026,” the May 26 order stated.

On April 20, 2026, the trial court had dismissed Mander’s application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking registration of an FIR against Himanta Biswa Sarma, on the ground that the alleged offence did not cause enmity or disharmony within the jurisdiction of the court. 

In April, Delhi-based social activist Harsh Mander filed an application seeking the registration of an FIR against Himanta Biswa Sarma over an allegedly provocative and communally charged statement he made on January 27, 2026, during an event in Digboi in Tinsukia district, Assam. 

According to Mander’s application, Sarma had allegedly publicly stated that “four to five lakh Miya voters” would be removed from the electoral rolls during the special intensive revision (SIR) process in the state. 

The plea further alleged that Sarma incited people against miyas, referring to Bengali-origin Muslims in Assam, by saying that ‘‘only if they face troubles will they leave Assam” and that ‘‘we are ensuring that they cannot vote in Assam”, the application noted.

However, the Saket court noted that there was no material on record to show that the alleged statements made by Himanta Biswa Sarma had caused enmity or disharmony among any group within the jurisdiction of this court. 

The court observed there was no material indicating any insult to the religious beliefs of any class of citizens within its jurisdiction, or to provoke any community to commit offences against another. Therefore, it was held that no offences under sections 196 (hate speech), 197 (remarks that threaten national integration, promote discord), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 302 (words, sounds, gestures with deliberate intent to insult or hurt religious beliefs), or 353 (creation, publication or circulation of false statements or reports to induce public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) were made out within the court’s jurisdiction.

On April 20, 2026, the court opined that there was no ground to register an FIR against Sarma and dismissed the petition.

In February, the Supreme Court took exception to petitioners approaching it directly for action against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over alleged “hate speech” without first approaching the concerned high court. It said that the top court turns into a political battleground whenever elections are on the radar.

“Wherever elections come, this court becomes a political battleground,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, presiding over a three-judge bench, said, while asking the petitioners — CPI(M), CPI and others — to first approach the jurisdictional high court.

The petitions referred to Sarma’s alleged speeches and a “shooting” video posted on X, alleging that these “target, terrorise and instigate hostility and overt violence against the Muslim community residing in the State of Assam.”

“The entire effort is to undermine and demoralise the high courts — which is not acceptable to us. There is a very calculated move to undermine the authority of the high courts. They are constitutional courts and have more power than us,” the CJI said.

“In our considered view, all these issues can be effectively adjudicated by the jurisdictional high court… consequently, without expressing any opinion on merits, we relegate the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional high court. Since the petitions have said that the matter requires urgent attention, we request the High Court Chief Justice to provide expeditious hearing,” the bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, said.