New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on Monday, asked petitioners seeking action against Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for alleged offences related to hate speech to approach the Gauhati High Court.
The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was reluctant to invoke Article 32 – that allows citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly – and said that the petitioners should first approach the jurisdictional High Courts, as reported by Live Law.
Chief Justice Kant expressed strong disapproval of the trend of parties directly approaching the Supreme Court, bypassing the High Courts. The bench also requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to grant an expeditious hearing to the petitioners.
“All these issues can be effectively adjudicated by the jurisdictional High Court. We see no reason to entertain this here, and thus we relegate the petitioners to the jurisdictional High Court. We request the High Court Chief Justice to expeditious hearing,” the bench observed in the order.
At the start of the hearing, the CJI said: “Wherever the elections come, this Court becomes a political battleground.” He had made a similar comment earlier when petitions in the matter were mentioned.
He also appealed to the political parties to fight elections based on “mutual respect and self-restraint.”
After the bench expressed reluctance to invoke Article 32, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for some of the petitioners, submitted that it was not just a matter relating to commission of offences but also involved the violation of the oath of office.
This was a most fit case for invoking Article 32, Singhvi said. He said that the High Court may not be an appropriate remedy, as the petitioners are seeking an SIT investigation against the chief minister.
“Don’t undermine the authority of the High Courts,” CJI Kant then said. “It has become a trend now that every matter lands up in the Supreme Court. Don’t demoralise the High Court judges,” he said.
Singhvi described Sarma as a “habitual offender.” “If the constitutional and social fabric of this country is threatened, shouldn’t 32 be invoked? He is brazenly speaking against one entire community,” the lawyer said.
When CJI Kant asked why the reliefs sought by the petitioners can’t be granted by the Gauhati High Court, Singhvi said that the petitioners be allowed to approach a High Court other than the one in Assam.
CJI Kant was displeased at this and said: “This is very unfortunate submission, I outrightly reject this.”
“Entire effort is to demoralize HC. There’s very calculated move to undermine High Courts,” the CJI said.
Singhvi said that Sarma was “demoralising the constitutional ethos of the country, and there was no FIR against him.”
“We are only objecting to the short-cut method, only because the Supreme Court matter will come in media in social media…respect the High Court, have faith in the system,” CJI Kant said.
“We are absolutely confident that the High Court will deal with the matter in accordance with the principles..,” the CJI added.
The bench was dealing with 3 petitions – two filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Annie Raja, a leader of the Communist Party of India (CPI), and a third filed by four individuals from Assam.
