Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma Made Unparliamentary Remarks Against Pawan Khera, Case Influenced By Politics: Supreme Court In Bail Order
The Court observed that Khera's allegations against Sarma's wife were Meant to gain political momentum.
The Supreme Court has observed that Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma made several unparliamentary remarks against Congress leader Pawan Khera during the resent Assembly elections, reflecting a political angle in the case defamation case against Khera filed by the CM's wife.
A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar observed that case involved allegations and counter-allegations between Khera and the CM fuelled by political rivalry and did not disclose a situation warranting custodial interrogation at this stage.
The Court made these observations while granting anticipatory bail to Khera in a defamation and forgery case over his allegations that CM Sarma's wife Riniki Bhuyan Sarma held multiple foreign passports.
It observed that Khera's allegations against Sarma's wife seemed to be made only for political gain, and noted that the CM, in response, made unparliamentary remarks against him.
“However, it primarily appears that merely to gain some political momentum in favour of his party, this statement has been made by the Appellant (Khera). Albeit, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Chief Minister of the State, who is also husband of the complainant, has made certain unparliamentary remarks against the Appellant in various press statements which have been filed before this Court”, the Court observed.
Khera had relied on the aforementioned statements made by Sarma to show apprehension of arrest and threat to his personal liberty.
During the hearing yesterday, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi for Khera highlighted many of the CM's public statements to show apprehension of arrest, including one in which the CM publicly threatened that Khera would spend the rest of his life in an Assam jail. “Dr. Ambedkar would turn in his grave if he had imagined that a Constitutional office holder will speak like a Constitutional cowboy or a Constitutional Rambo”, Singhvi had submitted.
Singhvi submitted that custodial interrogation was not required in the case, and the prosecution wanted to arrest Khera only because the Chief Minister, who is the “boss of the boss of the boss of the prosecutor”, wanted to humiliate Khera. Singhvi contended that the case was a political response to certain political allegations raised by the Khera.
Singhvi took the court through various statements made by CM, in which the CM “spewed venom” against Khera. In its order, the Court reproduced several of those statements –
On April 07, 2026, the Chief Minister said, “This election will certainly proceed as planned, but I am going to take further action-which I will reveal later-to turn Pawan Khera into 'Pawan Peda', wait for a few days.”
On the same day, he stated, “Who is this Pawan Khera? Even if he hides in the hell, I will drag him out.”
He also said, “He has fled now, hasn't he? He ran away from Guwahati as early as 6 AM yesterday morning… when the police went to Delhi, he had already fled all the way to Hyderabad.”
On April 08, 2026, Sarma stated, “No, well-first I'll go after Khera and knock him out (Khera ko pelunga); then, if other names comes up during the investigation, I'll make the others pay the price (Baaki ko peda banaunga).”
On April 11, 2026, he said, “Had the MCC not been in force, Pawan Khera would never have been able to travel from Delhi to Hyderabad; I would have had him deplaned and brought back midway through his journey.”
He further stated, “If the BJP forms the government, then Pawan Khera will spend the very last days of his life in an Assam jail.”
On April 15, 2026, Sarma, while questioning how Khera could leave Guwahati, said, “If on 4th May, if our government comes, then on 5th May, Commissioner of Police will be in my firing line.”
The Supreme Court observed that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta did not defend these statements while opposing anticipatory bail and their veracity was not disputed.
In this context, the Court held that the case involved political rivalry reflected in both the allegations made by Khera and the response by the Chief Minister.
It granted anticipatory bail, observing that while personal liberty under Article 21 must be protected, the investigation must proceed with the cooperation of the accused, and the veracity of the allegations could be tested at trial.
Case no. - SLP(Crl) No. 7786/2026
Case Title - Pawan Khera v. State of Assam