Supreme Court Throws a Lifeline to Pawan Khera; Grants Bail in Passport Row Linked to Assam CM’s Wife

The Supreme Court stepped in on Friday to grant Congress leader Pawan Khera anticipatory bail overturning a Gauhati High Court decision in a defamation and forgery case tied to Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. The court also took sharp note of the CM’s unparliamentary remarks targeting Khera.

Supreme Court Steps In for Pawan Khera

Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera walked away with major legal relief on Friday. The Supreme Court granted him anticipatory bail effectively shielding him from arrest in a case directly connected to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma.

A two-judge bench Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice AS Chandurkar delivered the order. They set aside the Gauhati High Court’s earlier ruling that had denied Khera any protection.

The court directed Khera to cooperate fully with investigators. He must appear before the investigating officer when summoned. He also cannot leave the country without prior court permission. Standard conditions such as not tampering with evidence were imposed alongside.

What Sparked This Entire Legal Battle

The trouble started when Khera made a bold claim at a press conference. He alleged that Riniki Bhuyan Sharma the Assam CM’s wife held multiple foreign passports. He further claimed she had undisclosed financial interests and a company registered in the United States.

Riniki Bhuyan Sharma then filed a formal complaint at the Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station. The FIR named multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita including Section 175 (false election statement), Section 318 (cheating), Sections 337 and 338 (forgery of public records and valuable security), Section 340 (using forged documents as genuine), Section 352 (provoking a breach of peace), and Section 356 (defamation).

On April 7, Assam Police officials showed up at Khera’s Delhi home. He was not present at the time.

A Long Road Through Multiple Courts

Khera’s legal journey wound through several courts before reaching the Supreme Court.

He first knocked on the Telangana High Court’s door citing his Hyderabad residence. On April 10, that court gave him a one-week transit anticipatory bail. This was meant to buy him time to approach the appropriate Assam court.

The Assam government challenged this almost immediately. The Supreme Court, on April 15, stayed the Telangana order. It clarified, however, that any fresh anticipatory bail application before the Assam court must be examined independently.

Khera then moved the Gauhati High Court. On April 24, the High Court rejected his plea outright. It held that custodial interrogation was necessary to find out how the alleged passport forgery happened and where Khera sourced the documents. The High Court also described Riniki Bhuyan Sharma as an “innocent woman” who had been unnecessarily dragged into a political dispute. It added that Khera had failed to back up his allegations with hard evidence.

Supreme Court Slams Both Sides But Sides With Liberty

The Supreme Court’s verdict was notably balanced yet firm on the question of personal freedom.

The court observed that both Khera and Chief Minister Sarma had been trading allegations and counter-allegations. But it took pointed notice of Sarma’s public statements. The bench recorded that the Chief Minister had made “unparliamentary remarks” against Khera including threats that Khera would spend the rest of his life behind bars in Assam.

The court’s ruling noted that the Gauhati High Court’s reasoning was flawed. It stated that the High Court order “is not based on correct appreciation of all the material which has been placed on record and appears to be erroneous, in particular shifting the burden on the accused.”

The court underscored that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be compromised lightly. “At this stage, we are cognizant of the fact that personal liberty of an individual enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be put to jeopardy,” the bench observed.

Sharp Words in the Courtroom

Thursday’s hearing the day before the order saw heated arguments from both sides.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Khera. He called the case “unprecedented” pointing out that the “boss of the boss of the boss of the prosecutor” had publicly made threats against his client. He was referring directly to Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma.

Singhvi said some of Sarma’s statements were so offensive that he could not even read them aloud in open court. “Dr BR Ambedkar would turn in his grave if he had imagined that a constitutional office holder would speak like a constitutional cowboy or a constitutional Rambo,” Singhvi argued.

He also questioned why nearly 50 to 60 Assam Police personnel had descended upon Khera’s Nizamuddin home treating him, Singhvi said, “as if he is a terrorist.” He maintained that most of the FIR’s charges are bailable. He further argued that Section 339 possession of forged documents was added to the FIR later and incorrectly.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued for the Assam government on the other side. He maintained that the investigation needed to establish who had helped forge the alleged documents and what the fake seal was about. He also contended that Khera had been “absconding” since the FIR was registered releasing audio tapes and statements while evading police reach. He raised the possibility of foreign connections in the alleged document forgery pointing to the backdrop of election season.

Court Makes Political Observations Too

The Supreme Court did not entirely let Khera off the hook. In its judgment, the bench noted that Khera had made certain remarks specifically to gain political mileage with assembly elections in Assam serving as the backdrop.

At the same time, the court made clear that Sarma’s retaliatory public statements were equally unacceptable for someone holding a constitutional position.

The court chose to grant relief weighing personal liberty against the nature of the allegations while imposing strict conditions to ensure Khera remains available for investigation.