Supreme Court protection from arrest has given Congress leader Pawan Khera legal breathing room in a politically charged Assam case linked to his allegations against Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma.A bench of Justice J K Maheshwari and Justice A S Chandurkar granted Khera anticipatory bail after hearing arguments over an FIR registered by Assam Police in connection with alleged defamation, forgery and criminal conspiracy. The case arose from claims made by Khera that Riniki Bhuyan Sarma held multiple foreign passports and possessed undisclosed assets abroad, allegations denied by the chief minister and his wife as fabricated and politically motivated.
The order came a day after the court reserved its ruling on Khera’s challenge to a Gauhati High Court decision refusing him pre-arrest protection. The Supreme Court underlined that personal liberty could not be placed in jeopardy lightly, particularly where the dispute appeared to carry political overtones. The ruling set aside the immediate threat of arrest while allowing the investigation to continue within the framework of law.
Khera had moved the apex court after the Gauhati High Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea on April 24. His legal team argued that the FIR did not justify custodial interrogation and that several of the offences invoked were either bailable or did not automatically require arrest. The defence maintained that the case was a response to political criticism rather than a genuine criminal investigation.
Assam Police opposed relief, contending that the allegations made at a public press conference were based on forged material and had damaged the reputation of a private individual. Investigators argued that custody was required to determine the source of the documents, identify possible collaborators and examine whether a wider conspiracy was involved. The prosecution also claimed Khera had not cooperated fully when police officers visited his Delhi residence on April 7.
The dispute began after Khera, speaking during an intense political campaign in Assam, alleged that Riniki Bhuyan Sarma had links to multiple passports and overseas assets that had not been disclosed. Sarma rejected the accusations and said legal action would follow. Riniki Bhuyan Sarma also denied the claims and indicated that criminal proceedings would be initiated.
Khera first sought transit protection from the Telangana High Court, which granted him limited relief on April 10 to approach the competent court in Assam. That order was later challenged by the Assam government before the Supreme Court. On April 17, the apex court declined to extend the transit protection and directed him to seek anticipatory bail before the appropriate forum in Assam.
The case then moved to the Gauhati High Court, where Khera’s plea was rejected, prompting his return to the Supreme Court. The sequence placed the matter at the intersection of criminal law, political speech and the use of police powers during an election-season dispute.
The Supreme Court’s intervention does not decide the truth or falsity of the allegations made by Khera. It only protects him from arrest at this stage, subject to conditions that may include cooperation with investigators and availability for questioning. The FIR and the complaint remain alive, and Assam Police can continue to examine the alleged documents, their origin and the circumstances in which they were circulated.
The ruling is likely to be viewed by the Congress as a reprieve in a case it has described as an attempt to silence opposition voices. The party has repeatedly argued that law enforcement agencies in several states have been used to target political criticism. Khera, a national spokesperson, has been involved in sharp public attacks on the Bharatiya Janata Party and its leaders, making the case politically sensitive beyond Assam.
For Sarma and his family, the case centres on reputation and the alleged circulation of fabricated claims. Defamation proceedings involving political figures often move slowly, but the addition of forgery and conspiracy allegations has widened the legal scope. If investigators establish that forged documents were knowingly used, the case could carry implications beyond a standard defamation complaint.
The matter also raises broader questions about the boundaries of political allegations, the duty to verify documents before public dissemination and the threshold for arrest in cases involving speech. Courts have often had to balance protection of reputation against free political expression, particularly where allegations are made during campaigns and carry the potential to influence voters.