‘Politically motivated’: SC grants relief to Congress leader Pawan Khera

The Supreme Court of India granted anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera in a case filed by Assam Police over alleged remarks against Riniki Sarma, citing political rivalry concerns and protecting personal liberty under Article 21

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the anticipatory bail plea of Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with an FIR lodged by the Assam Police over his alleged remarks against Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.

A Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Gauhati High Court’s decision that had denied him pre-arrest protection, observing that while investigation must proceed with integrity, individual liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be jeopardised lightly.

---

“While adjudicating an application for anticipatory bail, 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,” the Justice Maheshwari-led Bench said.

The apex court said that the criminal process must be applied with “objectivity and circumspection” to ensure that liberty is not imperilled by proceedings that may be coloured by political rivalry.

“We are 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,” the Supreme Court held.

Allowing the appeal, the top court directed that Khera be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, subject to reasonable conditions imposed by the investigating officer. It further directed Khera to cooperate with the investigation, appear before the police as and when required, refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and not leave India without prior permission of the competent court.

The Justice Maheshwari-led Bench found that the Gauhati High Court had erred in shifting the burden on the accused and had incorrectly relied on Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), despite the provision not being invoked in the FIR.

“In our view, the observations made by the High Court in the order impugned are not based on a correct appreciation of all the material placed on record and appear to be erroneous,” the apex court said.

During the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Khera, argued that the case essentially pertained to reputational harm and defamation, which did not justify custodial arrest. He had contended that there was no necessity for arrest, especially when Khera was willing to cooperate and was neither a flight risk nor likely to tamper with evidence.

Singhvi had argued that the allegations were rooted in political rhetoric during an election campaign and, at best, could amount to defamation rather than offences requiring custodial arrest.

On the other hand, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Assam government, opposed the plea, arguing that forged passports and fabricated documents had been displayed publicly and that custodial interrogation was essential to uncover their source and broader conspiracy.

In its order, the Supreme Court took note of multiple public statements made by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma against Khera, including remarks threatening strong action, and observed that these statements formed part of the broader political context surrounding the prosecution.

“The 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,” the Justice Maheshwari-led Bench said.

The case stems from allegations that Khera, during press conferences held on April 5 in Delhi and Guwahati, claimed that Riniki Bhuyan Sarma held multiple foreign passports, owned undisclosed foreign assets, and had links to overseas companies. Riniki Sarma denied the allegations and lodged an FIR asserting that the documents shown were fabricated using forged seals and QR codes.

Earlier, on April 24, the Gauhati High Court had rejected Khera’s anticipatory bail plea, holding that the matter could not be treated as “defamation simpliciter” and that custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain the source of the allegedly fabricated documents.

A single-judge Bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia had then observed that Khera had “dragged an innocent lady into the controversy” for political mileage and concluded that the seriousness of the allegations disentitled him to pre-arrest protection.

Khera had subsequently moved the Supreme Court after earlier rounds of litigation, including transit anticipatory bail granted by the Telangana High Court, which was later stayed by the apex court following a special leave petition (SLP) by the Assam Police.

The FIR registered by the Assam Crime Branch invoked multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to forgery, false statements, cheating, and defamation. Earlier this month, Assam Police had also conducted searches at Khera’s Delhi residence and pursued investigative steps in Hyderabad as part of the probe.