The legal dispute involving Congress leader Pawan Khera has escalated to the Supreme Court after the Gauhati High Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea. The case stems from a controversial statement made by Khera about Rinki Bhuiyan Sarma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, which led to an FIR being filed against him. Following the High Court’s decision, Khera approached the Supreme Court seeking relief from possible arrest. The matter was heard today, marking a significant development in a politically sensitive legal battle that has attracted nationwide attention.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi Raises Concerns Over Arrest Action
During the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Pawan Khera, strongly questioned the necessity of arrest in this case. He argued before the court that Khera is not a flight risk and cannot leave the country as his passport is not easily accessible. Singhvi further claimed that a large police team, reportedly 50 to 70 personnel, was deployed at Khera’s residence, describing the action as excessive and disproportionate. He compared the situation to a high-security criminal operation, stating that the intensity of police response was unusual and raised serious concerns about procedural fairness and intent behind the arrest efforts.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Defends FIR and Opposes Relief
Opposing the anticipatory bail plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presented strong arguments in court, stating that the allegations involve serious criminal charges, including the use of alleged fake documents. He argued that such actions amount to criminal misconduct and cannot be taken lightly. Referring to Khera’s statements during an election-related campaign, Mehta said that misleading claims involving passports and foreign documentation had been made, which were never officially issued by any authority. He further stressed that non-bailable offences justify custodial interrogation to uncover the source and intent behind the alleged documents. Citing previous Supreme Court rulings, he argued that police custody may be necessary to determine the full extent of the alleged wrongdoing.
Court Reserves Decision Amid Intense Legal and Political Debate
The Solicitor General also alleged that Pawan Khera is evading authorities and has been issuing video statements claiming safety from police action in another state. In response, Singhvi requested additional time to address the arguments and present supporting judgments before the court. After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court reserved its decision on the anticipatory bail plea. The case has now become a major legal and political flashpoint, drawing attention due to the involvement of high-profile figures and the sensitive nature of the allegations. The final order is expected to have significant implications for both legal proceedings and political discourse.
