Invoking Supreme Court relief for Congress leader Pawan Khera in a case linked to remarks on Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, senior Congress MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi on Friday made a clarion call to the Prime Minister.
Reacting to the ruling, Singhvi said the order reinforces the principle that detention should not be used routinely. He stressed that it should be “not the first resort, but the last resort.”
“With folded hands…”: An appeal to the Assam CM
Pointing out that the Assam Chief Minister “may or may not head to victory in two days”, referring to the counting of votes for the assembly polls scheduled for May 4, Singhvi filed an unusual direct appeal to Sarma, referring to the statements attributed to him and contained in the judgement.
“There is also a bigger issue,” Singhvi was quoted as saying by the news agency, adding: “Let me preface it by saying that I am not someone to advise the Chief Minister of Assam.”
Singhvi asked: “I, folding my arms, request the Chief Minister of Assam…does he not wish to sincerely reconsider his position as expressed in the judgement?”
He expanded his criticism, citing the language used in the Supreme Court’s observations. He said the statements attributed to Sarma in the public domain, which were quoted at length in the judgement, were “unrepeatable, unprintable and unconfirmable”.
He stressed that even the Supreme Court had not reproduced parts of what was presented to it, adding that such language “truly degrades our democracy” and “devalues it.” Expressing remorse, even without being asked to apologise, can “really raise” a prime minister’s level, Singhvi said.
He also noted that the Supreme Court had confirmed these observations and that the Attorney General had not justified or supported these statements.
Sarma responds and rejects the “lessons of democracy”
In a sharp response, the Assam Chief Minister said he did not need “lessons in democracy, public discourse or decency” from Abhishek Manu Singhvi, adding that “decency and him can never be in the same room”.
Speaking to He said he was confident that the courts would take into account and that “the guilty will be punished” for what he described as a “brazen act” aimed at influencing the election results.
Criticizing Singhvi’s remarks, Sarma added that “it is easy to speak on a platform where I am not present to respond”, describing it as “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.”
Congress describes the ruling as a victory for the Constitution
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, who was present alongside Singhvi, welcomed the ruling and termed it a reaffirmation of constitutional guarantees.
“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.”
What the SC order said
A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandorkar granted anticipatory bail to Khaira, stating that the case appeared to be driven by political rivalry more than the need for custodial interrogation.
The court noted that the allegations and counter-allegations were prima facie politically motivated and said their veracity could be examined during the trial.
He further pointed out that the observations regarding Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act were not justified.
Khaira was directed to cooperate fully with the investigation, appear before the police when needed, and refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The court also prohibited him from leaving India without prior permission and allowed the court to impose additional conditions if necessary. She explained that her observations were limited to the bail request and would not affect the merits of the case.
Khaira had moved the Supreme Court challenging an order passed by the Gauhati High Court on April 24, which denied him anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court said interrogation may be required, citing Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Forgery) Act, after the Assam Police alleged that the documents relied upon were fabricated.
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.
