JUSZnews

NEWS WITHOUT INTERRUPTION

Subscribe
Singhvi Urges Assam CM to Reconsider Stand After SC Relief to Khera
Abhishek Manu Singhvi appealed to Himanta Biswa Sarma after the Supreme Court granted relief to Pawan Khera, stressing restraint in arrests.

Senior Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi reacted to the Supreme Court’s decision to grant relief to Pawan Khera in a case linked to remarks about the wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.

He said the ruling reinforces an important legal principle. According to him, arrest should not be used routinely and must remain “not the first but the last resort".

Direct Appeal to Assam Chief Minister

At the same time, Singhvi made a direct appeal to Sarma. He noted that the chief minister might soon face election results, referring to the vote counting scheduled for May 4.

He said, “There is also a larger issue,” and added, “Let me preface it by saying I am nobody to advise the CM of Assam."

Then he made a polite request, saying, “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?”

Criticism Over Language Used

Singhvi also criticised the language attributed to Sarma, which the Supreme Court mentioned in its observations.

He described those remarks as “unrepeatable, unprintable and unstatable”. He pointed out that even the court chose not to include some parts of the statements in its judgment.

According to Singhvi, such language “truly debases our democracy” and “devalues it.” He added that expressing regret, even without a formal apology, could “actually elevate” the chief minister’s position.

He further noted that the Solicitor General did not defend or justify the remarks during the hearing.

Sarma Responds Strongly

In response, Himanta Biswa Sarma strongly rejected Singhvi’s comments. He said he does not need “lessons on democracy, public discourse or decency” from Singhvi and added that “decency and him can never be in the same room.”

Sarma stated that the issue involves “a woman who has nothing to do with politics.” He alleged that her character was attacked on national television using fake documents.

He expressed confidence that the courts would act and said “the guilty will be punished” for what he described as a “brazen act” meant to influence elections.

He also criticised Singhvi for speaking publicly without giving him a chance to respond. He said it was “not a debate” and accused him of avoiding a fair discussion. Sarma concluded his remarks with a warning: “This is just the beginning, not the end.”

Congress Calls Verdict a Win for Constitution

Meanwhile, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision.

“The Constitution has won today... It is a day of happiness,” he said. He added, “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.”

What the Supreme Court Said

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar granted anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera.

The court observed that the case appeared to be driven more by political rivalry than the need for custodial interrogation. It said the truth of the allegations could be examined during trial.

The judges also noted that references to Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were not justified in this case.

Conditions Imposed on Khera

The court directed Khera to fully cooperate with the investigation. He must appear before the police when required and cannot influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

Additionally, he cannot leave India without prior permission. The trial court may impose further conditions if necessary. The Supreme Court clarified that its observations apply only to the bail decision and will not affect the final outcome of the case.

Background of the Case

Khera had approached the Supreme Court after the Gauhati High Court denied him anticipatory bail on April 24.

The high court had said custodial interrogation might be needed, citing forgery charges under Section 339. These charges were based on claims by Assam Police that the documents used by Khera were fabricated.

However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the FIR did not mention Section 339. It said the high court’s observations on this charge did not appear correct.