Khera being targeted by ‘constitutional cowboy’ Himanta: Singhvi

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday reserved its verdict on a plea by Congress leader Pawan Khera seeking anticipatory bail in a case filed by Assam Police. The complaint was filed by Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, wife of Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul Chandurkar heard the matter after Gauhati High Court turned down Khera’s anticipatory bail plea, setting the stage for a broader contest over personal liberty, political speech and the limits of police power.

Appearing for Khera, senior advocate and Congress MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi framed the case as one that goes beyond an individual FIR.

Arguing that Khera is “not a hardened criminal”, Singhvi alleged that Khera was being targeted by a “constitutional cowboy”, a pointed reference to the Assam chief minister’s public posturing on the case.

At the heart of the defence was the argument that arrest, in this case, would be punitive rather than investigative.

Singhvi stressed that Khera is a public figure with a fixed address, no criminal antecedents, and no incentive to evade the law. Most of the charges, he noted, are bailable and relate to alleged defamation offences that ordinarily do not require custodial interrogation.

The show of force, he added, was disproportionate: “50–70 Assam police personnel” arriving at Khera’s Delhi residence “as if he is a terrorist”.

He argued that the prosecution bore the imprint of political vendetta, with the threat of arrest amplified through public statements rather than confined to the courtroom.

Opposing the plea, solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, representing the Assam government, told the court that the documents submitted by Khera were “fabricated and forged”, asserting that no such passports had been issued by any competent authority. He contended that custodial interrogation was essential to trace the origin of the documents, identify those who may have aided Khera, and determine whether any foreign links were involved.

Singhvi told the bench that some remarks attributed to Sarma were “unprintable” and claimed the chief minister had publicly suggested that Khera could spend the rest of his life in an Assam jail. Such rhetoric, Singhvi argued, erodes the institutional restraint expected of constitutional office holders, invoking Dr B.R. Ambedkar to underline the gravity of executive overreach in a constitutional democracy.

Invoking the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, Singhvi questioned the necessity of arrest at the pre-trial stage. “Even assuming a conviction at the end, what justifies arrest now?” he asked, pressing the court to draw a line between investigation and intimidation.

The state’s case, however, rests on a different footing. In rejecting anticipatory bail, the Gauhati High Court termed Khera a “flight risk” and underscored that the allegations go beyond political sparring, involving charges such as cheating and forgery.

The HC had noted that the remarks made by Khera were directed at a private individual — Sarma’s wife — rather than the chief minister, thereby weakening the defence of political rhetoric. It also held that custodial interrogation was necessary to establish the source and authenticity of documents cited by Khera.

This was second time that Khera appeared in the apex court in a month. On 17 April, the bench had refused to vacate a stay on transit bail granted by the Telangana High Court, shielding him from immediate arrest.

The legal battle, as per experts, sits at the intersection of two competing claims: the state’s assertion of investigative necessity and the defence’s warning against the criminalisation of political speech.