The Assam government on Tuesday assured the Gauhati High Court that it would file its reply by the next hearing in connection with multiple public interest litigations accusing Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of delivering “hate speech.” The division bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury fixed May 28 as the next date of hearing, directing that the response affidavit be served in advance to the petitioners’ counsel.

The three PILs, first taken up on February 26, alleged that Sarma’s remarks carried a “fissiparous tendency.” Notices were issued to the Chief Minister, the Centre, the Assam government, and the state’s Director General of Police. The petitions were filed shortly before the Assembly election schedule was announced, with polling held on April 9 and counting slated for May 4.

One petition was submitted on February 24 by Sahitya Akademi awardee Hiren Gohain, former DGP Harekrishna Deka, and senior journalist Paresh Malakar. The CPI and CPI(M) had also filed separate petitions earlier, with the CPI(M) naming the BJP as a respondent, though the High Court declined to issue notice to the party at this stage.

The Supreme Court had previously refused to entertain petitions against Sarma over a now-deleted video on X, purportedly showing him firing a rifle at members of a particular community. The apex court directed petitioners to approach the Gauhati High Court and asked the Chief Justice to expedite proceedings.

The petitioners alleged that Sarma’s remarks and actions were divisive, citing his admission of instructing party members to file complaints against Bengali-origin Muslims, referred to pejoratively as “Miyas.” They argued that such conduct violated his constitutional oath and amounted to “blatant hate speech.”

The PILs further claimed that the Chief Minister’s speeches and videos incited violence, encouraged social and economic boycotts, and propagated harmful stereotypes. They accused him of instigating communal disharmony and misusing state machinery to harass minority communities. The petitioners demanded an inquiry by a Special Investigation Team headed by a retired High Court judge, stressing that no suo motu FIR had been registered despite publicly available evidence of incitement.