‘With folded hands…’: Congress's appeal to Assam CM Himanta over Pawan Khera row, then a 'just begun' counter

E-PaperSubscribeSubscribeEnjoy unlimited accessSubscribe Now! Get features like Invoking the Supreme Court’s relief to 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 pointed appeal to the CM. SC grants bail to Khera; Singhvi says ‘arrest should be last resort’, appeals to Assam CM (File photos)Reacting to the ruling, Singhvi said the order reinforces the principle that arrest must not be used routinely. He stressed that it should be “not the first but the last resort". Noting that the Assam chief minister “may well head to a victory two days later or may not”, pointing to the counting of votes for the assembly elections slates for May 4, Singhvi made an unusual, direct appeal to Sarma, referring to remarks attributed to him that were cited in the judgment. “There is also a larger issue,” Singhvi said, adding, “Let me preface it by saying I am nobody to advise the CM of Assam," news agency quoted him as saying. Singhvi asked: “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?” He further expanded his criticism, citing the language in the Supreme Court’s observations. He said statements attributed to Sarma in the public domain, quoted at length in the judgment, were “unrepeatable, unprintable and unstatable”. He emphasised that even the Supreme Court had not reproduced parts of what was placed before it, adding that such language “truly debases our democracy” and “devalues it.” Singhvi argued that expressing regret, even without being asked to apologise, could “actually elevate” the chief minister. He also noted that the apex court had underlined these observations and that the Solicitor General had neither justified nor supported the statements. Responding sharply, Assam chief minister said he does not need “lessons on democracy, public discourse or decency” from Abhishek Manu Singhvi, adding that “decency and him can never be in the same room.” Taking to X, Sarma said the matter concerns “a woman who has nothing to do with politics,” whose character, he alleged, was attacked “on national television using forged documents from other countries.” He said he is confident that courts will take note and that “the guilty will be punished” for what he described as a “brazen act” aimed at influencing electoral outcomes. Taking aim at Singhvi’s remarks, Sarma added that it is “easy to speak on a platform where I am not present to respond,” calling it “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 leader Jairam Ramesh, who was present alongside Singhvi, welcomed the ruling, calling it a reaffirmation of constitutional safeguards. “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.” A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar granted Khera anticipatory bail, noting that the case appeared to be driven more by political rivalry than the need for custodial interrogation. The court observed that the allegations and counter-allegations were prima facie politically motivated and said their truthfulness could be examined during trial. It further pointed out that observations related to Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were not justified. Khera has been directed to cooperate fully with the investigation, appear before police when required, and refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The court also barred him from leaving India without prior permission and allowed the trial court to impose additional conditions if needed. It clarified that its observations are limited to the bail plea and will not affect the merits of the case. Khera had moved the apex court challenging an April 24 order of the Gauhati high court, which had denied him anticipatory bail. The high court had said custodial interrogation could be required, citing Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (forgery), after the Assam Police alleged that the documents relied upon by him were fabricated. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the FIR itself did not mention Section 339 and said the high court’s observations on that offence did not appear correct.