In a dramatic turn, Assam’s government has knocked on the Supreme Court’s doors, contesting a Telangana High Court decision shielding Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera from arrest. The state seeks to quash the one-week transit anticipatory bail, citing risks to an ongoing probe into allegedly defamatory comments.
At the heart lies an Assam FIR charging Khera with serious offenses linked to controversial utterances against CM Himanta Biswa Sarma and his wife Riniki Bhuiyan Sarma. The remarks, deemed offensive, ignited public fury and formal complaints.
Fearing imminent detention, Khera turned to Telangana’s high court for safeguard. On Friday, Justice K. Suchana granted brief respite, directing him to seek formal bail in Assam within the stipulated period. This order provided breathing room amid the frenzy.
Khera’s counsel, the formidable Abhishek Manu Singhvi, painted the prosecution as a tool of political suppression. He dissected the FIR’s clauses, asserting they pale to mere libel, insufficient for pre-arrest measures. Singhvi highlighted Khera’s clean record and readiness to assist, pleading against overreach.
Undeterred, Assam insists the allegations demand stringent handling to prevent interference. With a plea for priority listing before the Chief Justice, the state positions this as a test of judicial resolve against leniency in sensitive matters.
Observers note this saga underscores weaponization of law in partisan battles. As Supreme Court gears up, the verdict may redefine boundaries for anticipatory protections across jurisdictions, keeping political analysts on edge.
