The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on a petition filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera, who is challenging the Gauhati High Court’s decision to deny him anticipatory bail. The case pertains to a criminal complaint lodged by the Assam Police over his alleged remarks against the wife of Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
A Bench comprising Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar reserved its verdict after hearing detailed arguments from senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Khera, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Assam.
During the proceedings, Singhvi argued that the essence of the case pertained to allegations of defamation and damage to reputation, which, he argued, did not justify custodial arrest or interrogation.
The senior counsel argued that even if the allegations were accepted as they stand, there was no legal justification for an arrest, especially when sufficient safeguards could be put in place to secure Khera’s cooperation with the investigation.
“Where is the necessity of arrest? Why is it necessary to humiliate with custodial interrogation?” Singhvi submitted, asserting that personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must be protected.
“Where is the necessity of arrest? Why is it necessary to humiliate with custodial interrogation?” Singhvi submitted, asserting that personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must be protected.
Calling the Assam Police’s move to arrest Khera as disproportionate, Singhvi told the apex court that 50–60 policemen had arrived in Delhi “as if he is a terrorist”, while emphasising that most of the offences invoked in the FIR were bailable in nature.
He further argued that Khera was neither a hardened criminal nor a flight risk, but rather an active political leader facing what was essentially a politically motivated prosecution.
Singhvi also criticised the very public remarks made by the Assam Chief Minister Hiamanta Biswa Sarma, describing the language used by the constitutional office-holder as that of a “constitutional cowboy”.
He contended that CM Sarma’s remarks indicated political hostility, making judicial protection necessary.
Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the matter went beyond a simple defamation dispute and involved serious allegations of forgery and fabrication of official documents.
SG Mehta informed the Bench led by Justice Maheshwari that Khera had publicly presented purported copies of passports allegedly belonging to the Chief Minister’s wife, but the investigation had found these documents to be doctored and fabricated.
“As an investigating agency, we need to know who forged these documents, what the intent was, and whether there were larger conspiracies, including foreign involvement,” SG Mehta submitted.
He further stated that fake documents pertaining to a company allegedly registered in the United States had also been circulated.
The Solicitor General emphasised that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the origin of the forged materials, identify any accomplices, and determine whether foreign elements were involved in creating such documents to influence the electoral process.
