The Supreme Court on Thursday granted Congress spokesperson Pawan Kaira protection from arrest in a case linked to allegations that Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, holds foreign passports. The court said that personal freedom cannot be jeopardized through criminal proceedings that may be colored by political rivalry.
In an order issued on Friday, a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandorkar said individual liberty is a cherished fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and the criminal process must be exercised objectively and with caution.
The court said: “The criminal process must be applied objectively and with caution to ensure that individual freedom is not jeopardized by actions that may be colored by political competition.”
The court instructed Khair to cooperate with the investigation, not to leave the country without prior permission from the court, and not to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence while awaiting investigation or trial.
“The appellant is directed to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in the case of Crime Branch PS No. 04/2026 and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the Investigating Officer may frame as he deems fit,” the order said.
The court reserved its ruling on Thursday after hearing detailed submissions from senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represents Khaira, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represents the Assam government.
Khaira had approached the Supreme Court against the Gauhati High Court’s April 24 order denying him bail before his arrest. The Supreme Court observed that custodial interrogation may be necessary in view of Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (forgery of documents), after the Assam Police alleged that the documents relied upon by Khera were forged.
However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the FIR itself did not mention Section 339 and said that the Supreme Court’s observations on this offense do not appear to be correct.
“The FIR does not refer to the offense of Section 339 and on the basis of a statement made by the Solicitor General only, the observations made by the Supreme Court regarding Section 339 of the BNS do not appear to be correct,” the bench said.
The court also noted that the accusations were directed against the prime minister’s wife and not against Sarma himself, and said that the dispute appears, prima facie, to be politically motivated.
“The allegations and counter-allegations, as evident in this case, appear, prima facie, to be politically motivated and appear to be influenced by such rivalry, rather than to reveal a situation that warrants custodial interrogation, and the veracity of the allegations can be tested at trial,” she said.
The bench also referred to some “unparliamentary remarks” allegedly made by Sarma against Khera in press statements shown to him by Singhvi. She noted that when she put these observations to Mehta, he did not defend them or question their veracity.
Observing that previous Supreme Court judgments set a high threshold for curtailment of personal liberty, the bench said: “Personal liberty of an individual provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be compromised. At the same time, we are also of the view that for any crimes alleged in the FIR, the investigation has to be completed fairly and in full swing with the cooperation of the appellant.”
Reiterating that freedom is a cherished constitutional value, the court added: “Any deprivation of it must be justified at a higher level, especially when the surrounding circumstances indicate the presence of political connotations.”
The court said that the lower court may impose any other conditions it deems appropriate and made it clear that the observations contained in its order should not affect the proceedings related to the matter.
The case against Khera was registered by the Assam Police on April 6 under various provisions of the BNS. His press conference was held days before the state goes to the polls on April 9.
Singhvi said the trial was politically motivated and that Khaira had not fabricated or forged any document. He added: “It is quite clear that these documents were received from someone else. Therefore, the crimes have not been made prima facie clear. At best, it can be said that they were uttered for the purpose of obtaining political advantage without there being intent or male intent to commit a crime.”
Mehta, who opposed the relief, said the investigation was progressing and a prima facie case of fraud had been filed. He also questioned Khaira’s conduct after the FIR was registered and said the statements made during the election period could amount to public mischief rather than being limited to an individual complainant.
