'Ambedkar would be turning in....grave': Pawan Khera at bail hearing
What's the story
The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on Congress leader Pawan Khera's plea for anticipatory bail. The case stems from a complaint by Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. She alleged that Khera had falsely claimed she held multiple passports. During the hearing, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Khera, said that "Ambedkar would turn in his grave if he had imagined that a Constitutional office holder would speak like a Constitutional cowboy or...Rambo," referring to Sarma.
Legal arguments
Singhvi argues case is unprecedented, no need for arrest
Singhvi argued that the case was an "unprecedented" one with statements from the "boss of the boss of the boss of the Prosecutor," referring to public remarks by Sarma. Singhvi stated that some of Sarma's statements are "unprintable" and cannot be read in court. He said Sarma threatened to imprison Khera for life in Assam jail and compared Sarma to a "Constitutional cowboy or a Constitutional Rambo."
Arguments
50-60 policemen from Assam landed in Delhi to arrest Khera
Singhvi contended that there was no need for arrest or custodial interrogation in this case, asking why such humiliation was necessary when other measures could ensure Khera's cooperation with the investigation. "Why is it necessary to humiliate [me] with a custodial interrogation?" he asked. Singhvi said that about 50-60 policemen from Assam landed in Delhi to arrest Khera, as if "he is a terrorist." He also argued that most of the offenses in the FIR are bailable.
FIR
Khera was not 'hardened criminal'
Singhvi further objected to the high court's description of the complainant (Rinki Bhuyan Sarma) as an "innocent lady," arguing that it was a matter for trial. He contended that the high court had prejudged the issue. Singhvi emphasized that personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 must be safeguarded, stressing that Khera was not a "hardened criminal" but an active politician and that the prosecution was primarily a political response to specific political allegations raised by the petitioner.
Opposition stance
SG Mehta says Khera 'absconding' since FIR was registered
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta opposed Khera's plea, arguing that he had been "absconding" since the FIR was registered. He claimed custodial interrogation was necessary to find out who were involved in forging documents and if foreign elements were involved. Mehta said Khera's allegations about Sarma having passports were based on forged images. "I would like to know how you forged the documents? What was your intent? If you did not forge, who gave it to you?" he asked.
Case background
Khera 1st approached Telangana High Court for transit anticipatory bail
The FIR filed by Riniki invokes several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including false statements in connection with an election and defamation. Khera first approached the Telangana High Court for transit anticipatory bail, which was granted on April 10. However, this was stayed by the Supreme Court on April 15. After this, Khera moved the Gauhati High Court for anticipatory bail, which also rejected his plea. He approached the SC again last week.