Congress leader Pawan Khera’s bid for pre-arrest protection in the Telangana High Court triggered a sharp courtroom exchange on Thursday, as lawyers on both sides traded barbs including “constitutional cowboys” and “international khiladi” while arguing over whether the plea was maintainable and whether the case against him reflected a criminal investigation or political retaliation. The High Court, hearing the matter before Justice K Sujana in Hyderabad, reserved its order after an extended hearing. The case stems from a complaint filed by Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, after Khera publicly alleged that she held multiple foreign passports and owned overseas assets that were not disclosed in the chief minister’s election affidavit. On the basis of that complaint, Guwahati Police registered a case against Khera and others, with reports saying the FIR invoked provisions linked to false statements, forgery, cheating, criminal intimidation and conspiracy under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Khera has challenged both the substance of the accusations and the manner in which the case has been pursued.
At the centre of Thursday’s hearing was not only the content of Khera’s allegations but also the question of jurisdiction and the apprehension of arrest. Khera, who moved the Telangana High Court because he has a residence in Hyderabad, argued through senior counsel that he faced coercive action from Assam Police and that the case was being used as a tool of harassment. Reports of police activity in Delhi and Hyderabad added weight to that contention, with Assam Police said to have searched his Delhi residence and sought to locate him in Hyderabad as political tempers rose ahead of polling in Assam.
Counsel appearing for Khera cast the episode as an example of the criminal law being stretched to address what they described as a political dispute. The defence line, as reflected in multiple court reports, was that even if the allegations were disputed, the response from the state machinery was excessive and pointed to vendetta. That argument was sharpened by references to attempts to secure stronger coercive measures and by repeated claims from Congress figures that the action against Khera was designed to intimidate an opposition spokesperson in the middle of a charged electoral atmosphere.
The Assam side pushed back firmly, arguing that the matter could not be dismissed as mere political rhetoric or simple defamation. Their position, as presented in coverage of the hearing, was that the allegations involved fabricated material, reputational damage and a wider conspiracy that required investigation in Assam, where the FIR had been registered. They also questioned whether a court in Telangana should entertain anticipatory bail in a case lodged elsewhere, making maintainability one of the key issues before the judge.
That legal clash quickly took on a theatrical edge. Courtroom accounts said the exchange grew heated enough for lawyers to deploy vivid political language, with one side invoking “constitutional cowboys” and the other answering with “international khiladi”. The phrasing underlined how a dispute that began with allegations over passports and assets has moved beyond a narrow criminal complaint into a wider contest over political speech, investigative power and the use of interstate police action against national opposition figures.
Chronology matters in this case. Khera’s petition was filed earlier this week, after the FIR was lodged in Assam and after police activity around him intensified. The High Court heard the matter on Thursday, April 9, and reserved its order for Friday, April 10. That sequence is significant because Khera’s plea is essentially preventive: he is seeking protection before any arrest, while also contesting the legitimacy of the complaint and the forcefulness of the police response.
Politically, the case arrives at a combustible moment. Himanta Biswa Sarma has publicly attacked Khera, while Congress leaders have described the FIR and police action as a witch-hunt. Sarma’s wife, meanwhile, has framed the issue as one of deliberate reputational harm, arguing through the complaint that false and damaging claims were circulated in a coordinated fashion. Those competing narratives leave the court to decide a narrower legal question for now, but the fallout is likely to travel well beyond the bail order because it touches on campaign discourse, the rights of political critics and the boundaries of criminal prosecution in high-voltage political fights.