Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, May 1: The Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma responded sharply to the Congress leader and prominent advocate Abhishek Manu Snghvi’s request for reconsidering his stand on the arrest of Congress spokesman Pawan Khera after the Supreme Court on Friday granted anticipatory bail in a criminal case concerning his wife Riniki Bhuyan Sarma,
Making a pointed appeal to Mr Sarma, Mr Singhvi said the SC order reinforces the principle that arrest must not be used routinely. He stressed that it should be “not the first but the last resort.” Singhvi asked: “I, with folded hands, request the CM of Assam… does he not wish that he should genuinely reconsider his stand as reflected in the judgment?”
Responding sharply, Assam chief minister said he did not need “lessons on democracy, public discourse or decency” from Abhishek Manu Singhvi, adding that “decency and he can never be in the same room.” Taking to X, Sarma said the matter concerns “a woman who has nothing to do with politics,” whose character, he alleged, was attacked “on national television using forged documents from other countries.” He said he was confident that courts would take note and that “the guilty will be punished” for what he described as a “brazen act” aimed at influencing electoral outcomes.
Taking aim at Singhvi’s remarks, Sarma added that it was “easy to speak on a platform where I am not present to respond,” calling it “not a debate” but an attempt to avoid a fair exchange. He ended his response with a warning, saying, “This is just the beginning, not the end.”
Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Mr Khera in the criminal case instituted on a complaint Mr Sarma’s wife saying the case appeared to be motivated by political rivalry and did not warrant custodial interrogation.
A Bench headed by Justice J.K. Maheshwari and also comprising Justice Atul S. Chandurkar cautioned the State of Assam against using the power to arrest so casually, as if to strike a blow at a political rival. The 22-page order said the right to personal liberty cannot be jeopardised lightly. “Criminal process must be applied with objectivity and circumspection so as to ensure that individual liberty is not imperilled by proceedings that may be coloured by political rivalry.
“We are further of the opinion that the allegations and counter-allegations, as apparent in the present case, prima facie, appear to be politically motivated and seemingly influenced by such rivalry, rather than disclosing a situation warranting custodial interrogation, and the veracity of the allegations can be tested at trial,” the Supreme Court Bench observed in the order. The court said shackling a cherished fundamental right like personal liberty should be justified at a higher threshold than what seemed to be political rivalry.
Mr Khera had held press conferences in Gauhati on April 5, in the thick of an acrimonious Assembly election campaign in Assam. He had accused Mr Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, of holding three passports of Egypt, United Arab Emirates and Antigua and Barbuda. He had stated that two of these nations were “Muslim countries, however, the husband’s politics is based on hatred against the Muslim community in the State.” He had also exhibited documents stating that she had a company registered at Wyoming in the USA with an investment of more than ₹50,000 crores besides owning assets in Dubai. Mr Khera had stated that Mr Sarma’s election affidavit had not disclosed any of these details of wealth.
Mr Singhvi made an unusual, direct appeal to Sarma referring to remarks attributed to him that were cited in the judgment. “There is also a larger issue,” Singhvi said, adding, “Let me preface it by saying I am nobody to advise the CM of Assam,” he said and further expanded his criticism, citing the language in the Supreme Court’s observations. He said statements attributed to Sarma in the public domain, quoted at length in the judgment, were “unrepeatable, unprintable and unstatable.”
He emphasised that even the Supreme Court had not reproduced parts of what was placed before it, adding that such language “truly debases our democracy” and “devalues it.” Singhvi argued that expressing regret, even without being asked to apologise, could “actually elevate” the chief minister. He also noted that the apex court had underlined these observations and that the Solicitor General had neither justified nor supported the statements.
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, who was present alongside Singhvi, welcomed the SC ruling, calling it a reaffirmation of constitutional safeguards. “The Constitution has won today… It is a day of happiness,” he said, adding, “We welcome the Supreme Court’s decision. We will keep trying, but today’s decision tells the public that the protectors of the Constitution are still alive.”
Khera had moved the apex court challenging an April 24 order of the Gauhati high court, which had denied him anticipatory bail. The high court had said custodial interrogation could be required, citing Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (forgery), after the Assam Police alleged that the documents relied upon by him were fabricated. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the FIR itself did not mention Section 339 and said the high court’s observations on that offence did not appear correct.
The FIR was registered on the same intervening night by the Assam Police after Ms Sarma denied the veracity of these documents and stated that they were fabricated using forged seals and QR codes. Mr Khera was booked for conspiracy, forgery and criminal defamation. The Congress leader, through senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, said the FIR was driven by an ulterior political motive and was intended to humiliate him with his arrest.
The Bench noted that the documents exhibited by Mr Khera was already in the custody of the prosecution, and preliminary investigation had already commenced in the case. The court said prima facie it seemed Mr Khera’s statements were designed to gain “some political momentum in favour of his party.”
On the other hand, the court highlighted that it could not “lose sight of the fact that the Chief Minister of the State, who is also husband of the complainant, has made certain unparliamentary remarks against the appellant (Khera) in various press statements which have been filed before this court.”
The court said a careful balance must be struck between the State’s interest in ensuring a fair investigation and the individual’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Khera, called this an “unprecedented case” and made sly references to the Chief Minister as the “boss of the boss of the boss of the prosecutor.” The reference was to comments by Sarma that Singhvi declined to reproduce in court, calling them “unprintable” and contenting himself with telling the court his client had been threatened with life imprisonment. “Dr Ambedkar would turn in his grave if he imagined that a constitutional office-holder would speak like a cowboy or Rambo,” Singhvi declared.
Singhvi had also pointed out the bulk of charges against his client were defamation and reputational damage, and neither called for arrest or custodial interrogation, as had been sought. “Let me assume I am convicted ultimately…” he said, “But where is the necessity of arrest? What is there in the case which cannot be done without an arrest?”
In response, the solicitor general had insisted that custodial interrogation of Khera was needed to establish the source of photographs and documents the Congress leader offered to back up his statements about the Chief Minister’s wife.
This is the second time in two weeks Pawan Khera has appeared before the Supreme Court in this matter; on April 17 he was told the court would not vacate its stay on a Telangana High Court grant of transit bail. That order — also delivered by Justice Maheshwari and Justice Chandurkar — would have prevented him from being arrested by police from Assam.
