Today, On 30th April, The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on Congress leader Pawan Khera’s anticipatory bail plea in a defamation and forgery case lodged by the Assam Police. Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi said, “Dr. B.R. Ambedkar would turn in his grave…”
The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the anticipatory bail plea filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera in the defamation and forgery case registered by the Assam Police.
The case was filed after Khera made allegations against the wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
The bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar heard both sides and then reserved the verdict.
Khera argued before the Court that there was no need to arrest him. He said that even if his statements were taken at the highest, they would only amount to defamation and not to serious offences of forgery or public mischief, which were added by the Assam Police.
But the Assam Police told the Court that Khera had displayed forged documents, including passports, to make false allegations. The police said that his custody was required to find out who helped him and whether any foreign elements were involved.
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for Khera, told the Court:
“There has to be a credible apprehension of arrest and here, that threshold is clearly met. In fact, this is an unprecedented situation where the prosecution itself has made my apprehension credible.”
He added that these statements came from the “boss of the boss of the boss” of the prosecutor, and therefore there was no doubt that the apprehension of arrest was genuine.
He urged the Court to look at the reports from Assam Chronicle and said:
“Please look at these reports from Assam Chronicle they even contain an unprintable word right in the middle. Refer to the ‘peda’ remarks phrases like ‘pelunga’ and ‘peda bana dunga.’”
He also said,
“Dr. B.R. Ambedkar would turn in his grave if he saw a constitutional office-holder behaving in what he described as a ‘constitutional cowboy’ or a ‘constitutional Rambo’ manner.”
Singhvi argued that the allegations relate only to reputational harm. He said,
“The heart of the allegations against me is reputational damage. Whether the allegations are true or not is something to be decided at trial. But even if you take the allegations at face value, there’s nothing that warrants an arrest in this case.”
He argued that there was absolutely no need for custodial interrogation in a defamation case and said there was no possibility of flight risk because travel documents like passports could always be regulated by authorities.
Singhvi told the Court that the attempt to arrest him appeared to come only from the personal anger of the Assam Chief Minister.
He said that if anticipatory bail was denied in such a situation, it would defeat the entire purpose of the law, especially when the prosecution had even sought a non-bailable warrant and was using the full force of the State machinery against him.
He pointed out that several criminal sections had been added unnecessarily and that the allegation that he was absconding or capable of influencing witnesses was completely unfounded.
He also highlighted that around 50 to 70 police officers reportedly reached Nizamuddin as though they were targeting a dangerous offender, which he said reflected the hostile attitude of the State authorities.
Singhvi referred to a public interview of the Assam Chief Minister where statements were made about holding the police accountable for Khera’s movements between different cities and even suggesting action against senior police officers.
According to him, this clearly showed pressure being put on the police force. He maintained that full cooperation and interrogation could easily be done without arrest, and there was no legal necessity for taking him into custody.
Singhvi added,
“I’m not wrong in using phrases like ‘constitutional cowboy’ or ‘constitutional Rambo.’ Look at the High Court’s order it’s full of errors. It even says he should be arrested under Section 339, but that’s a bailable offence. And more importantly, Section 339 isn’t even mentioned in the FIR or the police complaint.”
He argued that the inclusion of certain charges had no legal basis and appeared to come entirely from the judge’s own understanding, noting that even the prosecutor had not relied on Section 339, yet the High Court order still mentioned it.
Singhvi reiterated that this was not a matter where arrest was warranted and maintained that taking a person into custody should never be the first step.
According to him, arrest can only be justified when the investigating agency proves that its objectives cannot be achieved without custodial interrogation, which was not the situation in this case.
He further submitted that the High Court had taken a heavily biased and legally flawed approach. He pointed out that the prosecution’s argument that Khera had not proved whether the woman in question held multiple passports was irrelevant at the anticipatory bail stage. He insisted that anticipatory bail was a basic legal right and should not be treated as a privilege.
Singhvi said the court must consider the issue in the correct legal context, especially when the allegations related only to reputational harm and not to any serious crime.
He stressed that the usual concerns associated with hardened criminals such as absconding or threatening witnesses did not arise here, and added that there was no flight risk at all.
He also questioned why a notice under Section 35 had not been issued before initiating such drastic action, and expressed concern that more than 60 personnel were reportedly deployed to Nizamuddin, which he viewed as excessive and unwarranted.
During the hearing, Justice Maheshwari questioned certain factual assertions made by the defence:
“On what basis are you saying 60-plus persons were sent to Nizamuddin?”
This indicated the Court’s scrutiny of factual claims while assessing the necessity of custodial measures.
Solicitor General Mehta’s Submissions
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Assam Police, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail and argued that the case involves serious allegations of document forgery and fabrication, which require thorough investigation.
He stated,
“Antigua is country where fugitives go. He said I have a passport for that. all statements about allegations about my holding citizenship are totally false. Copies of passports are fake, doctored, and fabricated documents.”
Explaining the seriousness of the offence, Mehta submitted,
“Passport is a valuable security under BNS. During the election campaign, one person comes and says one lady is holding 3 passports… Investigation has revealed that these are forged documents.”
The State argued that custodial interrogation was essential to understand how the alleged forged documents were created, who was involved in producing them, and whether the materials were supplied to Khera by someone else.
The prosecution maintained that the investigation needed to uncover the motive behind the circulation of such documents and to determine whether any foreign sources were connected to the alleged fabrication.
It was further submitted that the probe had to establish how a photograph was allegedly removed from a passport and replaced with that of another woman, including the recreation of QR codes, seals, and other official elements, which could indicate a larger network involved in producing fake documents.
Responding to this, Singhvi said there had been no meaningful reply to his core arguments, particularly regarding his credible fear of arrest. He stressed that the nature of the allegation and the background of the person involved must be taken into account, and maintained that there was no overt criminal act, since the issue arose from a press conference, and at most, an incorrect statement could be alleged.
He asserted that the prosecution had not shown any genuine need for custodial interrogation, as the case mainly concerned official documents that could be examined without placing anyone in custody.
Singhvi added that a person seeking anticipatory bail remains a free individual entitled to the presumption of innocence. He also pointed out that the precedent relied on by the Solicitor General related to a lease dispute and was entirely unrelated to the present facts.
After hearing all arguments, the bench said,
“Judgement is Reserved.”
Background Details:
Earlier, Congress leader Pawan Khera approached the Supreme Court after the Gauhati High Court rejected his application for anticipatory bail in a case registered by the Assam Police. The matter follows allegations and remarks made by Khera concerning Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife.
The Gauhati High Court, while dismissing his plea for pre-arrest bail, observed that the case was not simply defamation. The court said: “The case cannot be termed as a case of defamation simpliciter. There are materials for a prima facie case under Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023,” and further noted “He does not deserve to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail”.
After the verdict, the Congress party indicated it would challenge the decision in the Supreme Court. Jairam Ramesh, Party General Secretary (Communications), said he stood firmly with Khera and expressed confidence that legal relief would be granted.
Earlier, Khera had obtained interim protection from the Telangana High Court, which granted him limited transit anticipatory bail so that he could approach the appropriate court in Assam. However, this relief did not last, as the Supreme Court stayed the Telangana High Court’s order after Assam Police challenged it. The apex court did not lift the stay and also declined to extend the interim protection.
At the same time, the Supreme Court clarified that its earlier observations would not influence how the competent court in Assam decides Khera’s bail plea. After that, Khera renewed his bid for anticipatory bail before the Gauhati High Court.
The dispute traces back to Khera’s allegations that Riniki Bhuyan Sarma held multiple foreign passports, owned luxury properties abroad without declaring them, and had connections to shell companies. The FIR, lodged at the Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station, cites multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including offences connected to false statements, cheating, forgery, and defamation. Earlier in the investigation, Assam Police conducted searches at Khera’s residence in Delhi and carried out related inquiries in Hyderabad.
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE