The Indian National Congress has declared its unwavering support for party leader Pawan Khera, vowing to contest the Gauhati High Court’s decision to reject his anticipatory bail petition. The plea was filed in connection with allegations made by Khera against the wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, specifically concerning the possession of multiple passports and undisclosed foreign assets. Jairam Ramesh, the Congress general secretary in charge of communications, expressed strong confidence that the pursuit of justice would ultimately triumph over what he described as a “politics of threat and intimidation.”
In a statement posted on the social media platform X, Ramesh articulated the party’s united stance. “The entire Indian National Congress stands solidly in solidarity with Pawan Khera, the Chairman of its Media and Publicity Department,” he stated. He further elaborated that the verdict delivered by the Gauhati High Court was in the process of being challenged before the Supreme Court of India. “We are confident that justice will prevail over the politics of threat, intimidation, and harassment,” Ramesh added, underscoring the party’s resolve in the face of legal proceedings. Information reaching TahirRihat.com suggests that this legal battle stems from a press conference where Khera leveled serious accusations against Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, the wife of Assam’s Chief Minister.
The Gauhati High Court, through a single bench presided over by Justice Parthiv Jyoti Saikia, rejected Khera’s anticipatory bail application on Friday. This application had been submitted earlier in the week, following a directive from the Supreme Court that Khera should approach the Gauhati High Court for relief. The allegations that precipitated this legal action involved claims that Riniki Bhuyan Sharma held multiple passports and possessed undeclared properties in foreign countries. In response to these assertions, Sarma’s wife initiated criminal proceedings against Khera. These cases were filed at the Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station, invoking various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), India’s new criminal code.
The High Court, in its ruling, provided reasoning for its decision, stating that it was of the opinion that the case, under the prevailing circumstances, could not be characterized as a simple matter of defamation. The court elaborated that the situation extended beyond a mere claim of defamation without any accompanying factors such as malice or conspiracy. The bench found that there was sufficient material to establish a prima facie case under Section 339 of the BNS, which pertains to the possession of forged documents or electronic records. Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner, Pawan Khera, had reportedly been evading police investigation. The necessity for custodial interrogation was emphasized by the court as crucial for uncovering the extent of his network, identifying individuals who assisted in gathering the alleged documents, and ascertaining the methods and origins of their acquisition.
The legal journey for Pawan Khera began when he initially sought recourse from the Telangana High Court, given his residency in Hyderabad. The Telangana High Court had granted him a seven-day transit anticipatory bail. However, this order was subsequently challenged by the Assam Police in the Supreme Court. The apex court then issued an interim order to stay the grant of transit anticipatory bail and directed Khera to pursue his plea before the Gauhati High Court, leading to the current proceedings. The legal intricacies of the case highlight the serious nature of the charges and the ongoing efforts by both sides to navigate the judicial process. The Congress party’s strong backing of Khera signals a significant political dimension to the unfolding legal dispute, with the party framing it as a struggle against authoritarian tactics.
The allegations, as reported by PTI, center on Khera’s claims made during a press conference. These claims, which prompted the criminal cases, have now led to a high-stakes legal battle. The Gauhati High Court’s rejection of anticipatory bail suggests a judicial assessment that the investigation requires Khera’s presence and potential interrogation. The court’s reference to Section 339 of the BNS indicates that the focus is not solely on defamation but potentially on the procurement and possession of forged or fabricated documents, a more serious offense. The court’s observation that Khera has been avoiding police investigation further complicates his legal position and underscores the rationale behind denying anticipatory bail, as custodial interrogation is deemed necessary to unravel the full scope of the alleged conspiracy and the sources of information.
The Congress party’s public declaration of solidarity and its commitment to a Supreme Court appeal underscore the political stakes involved. By framing the legal action as an instance of “politics of threat and intimidation,” the party aims to rally support and portray Khera as a victim of political vendetta. This narrative is likely to be a central theme as the case progresses to the highest court. The legal fraternity will be closely watching the proceedings, particularly the arguments presented before the Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of defamation laws, the application of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the principles governing anticipatory bail in cases involving allegations of document forgery and evasion of investigation. The outcome of this challenge could have broader implications for political discourse and the use of legal mechanisms in response to public statements by opposition figures.
Tahir Rihat (also known as Tahir Bilal) is an independent journalist, activist, and digital media professional from the Chenab Valley of Jammu and Kashmir, India. He is best known for his work as the Online Editor at The Chenab Times.
