Communal Dog-Whistles in an Election Season: CJP flags hate speech by BJP’s Ameet Satam to election authorities Complaint to election authorities challenges BJP leader’s “jihad” and demographic threat claims used to polarise voters
05, Jan 2026 | CJP Team
In a strong intervention against the normalisation of communal rhetoric during elections, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has approached the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Chief Electoral Officer, Maharashtra, seeking urgent action against Ameet Satam, President of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Mumbai, for delivering communal, inflammatory, and hate-based remarks in clear violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The complaint arises from a speech delivered by Satam on December 6, 2025, during the public inauguration of a BJP office in Ward No. 47, Malad West, at a time when the Model Code of Conduct was in force owing to the ongoing Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) electoral process. The speech, widely circulated through video footage online, deploys familiar yet deeply dangerous communal tropes—branding Muslims as “jihadis,” accusing them of facilitating illegal immigration, and invoking conspiracy theories such as “vote jihad” and “land jihad.”
From political speech to communal vilification
CJP’s complaint makes it clear that the impugned speech goes far beyond permissible political criticism. Satam is seen alleging that “jihadis” have infiltrated the Goregaon Sports Club, accusing Muslims of aiding Rohingya and Bangladeshi migrants in illegally acquiring land and identity documents, and suggesting that demographic changes driven by Muslim presence pose a threat to governance and society.
These remarks, delivered at a public political event and amplified through digital circulation, effectively criminalise an entire religious community, casting Muslim citizens as infiltrators, conspirators, and demographic threats. The language used is not incidental—it is part of a growing repertoire of coded hate speech, designed to mobilise voters through fear, suspicion, and hostility towards a minority community.
CJP has annexed the video footage of the speech as evidence, underscoring that these are not stray remarks but verifiable, deliberate public statements made in an electoral context.
Clear violations of the Model Code of Conduct
The complaint highlights that the Model Code of Conduct explicitly bars political actors from making appeals to communal feelings, aggravating differences between religious communities, or using unverified allegations that vitiate the electoral atmosphere. Satam’s remarks, CJP argues, strike at the very heart of these prohibitions.
By invoking Muslims as a collective threat and framing them as agents of demographic and electoral subversion, the speech seeks to polarise the electorate along religious lines—a practice the Election Commission has repeatedly condemned, including in cases involving indirect or “dog-whistle” appeals.
Statutory breaches under the Representation of the People Act
CJP further points out that the speech attracts multiple violations under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. These include:
- Section 123(3), which prohibits appeals based on religion—violated here through indirect but unmistakable religious mobilisation
- Section 123(3A), which bars the promotion of hatred or enmity between communities
- Section 125, a penal provision that criminalises the promotion of enmity in connection with elections.
The complaint draws strength from the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017), which unequivocally held that any direct or indirect appeal to religion corrodes the foundations of secular democracy.
An assault on constitutional values
Beyond electoral law, CJP situates the speech within the broader constitutional framework. The remarks, it argues, violate Article 14 (equality before law), Article 15 (non-discrimination), and Article 21 (right to dignity), while abusing the protection of free speech under Article 19(1)(a)—a right that does not extend to hate speech.
At stake is not merely legal compliance, but the constitutional promise of secularism, fraternity, and equal citizenship, values explicitly enshrined in the Preamble.
Why This Matters: Electoral integrity and minority rights
Malad West and its surrounding areas are religiously diverse. In such contexts, speeches that frame minorities as conspirators or infiltrators carry real consequences: voter intimidation, communal polarisation, and erosion of public trust in free and fair elections.
CJP warns that allowing such rhetoric to pass without consequence lowers the threshold of acceptable political discourse and emboldens further communal targeting—turning elections into arenas of fear rather than democratic choice.
CJP’s call for urgent action
In its prayer, CJP urges the Election Commission to take immediate cognisance of the complaint, initiate proceedings against Ameet Satam for MCC violations, issue a show-cause notice, impose appropriate sanctions, and direct law enforcement authorities to examine penal liability under the RPA. Importantly, CJP also calls for a general advisory to political parties, cautioning against the use of conspiracy-laden communal narratives like “vote jihad” and “land jihad.”
The complete complaint may be read here.
Related:
CJP moves NCM against surge in Hate Speech at Hindu Sanatan Ekta Padyatra
