The case arises from a press conference addressed by Mr. Khera on April 4, 2026, in which he alleged that the Assam Chief Minister’s wife held three passports issued by different countries and levelled allegations of illegality against Mr. Sarma
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 15, 2026) stayed the order of the Telangana High Court granting interim protection from arrest to Congress leader and spokesperson Pawan Khera in connection with an FIR filed by Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, over allegations that she held multiple passports.
A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and A.S. Chandurkar said it was “surprised” by the High Court’s April 10 order granting Mr. Khera one-week interim relief, and issued notice to him on a petition filed by the Assam Police challenging the grant of such protection.
“We are surprised by the High Court’s order… The operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed,” the Bench said. It, however, clarified that if the Congress leader were to move an application for anticipatory bail before the appropriate court in Assam, the stay would not operate to his prejudice or invite any adverse inference.
The High Court had granted Mr. Khera interim protection from arrest for a period of one week, clarifying that the limited relief was intended to enable him to approach the competent court, which would have to consider any application for regular or anticipatory bail on its own merits. It had also directed him to refrain from making any further public statements on the subject matter of the case.
Appearing for the Assam government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Mr. Khera had approached the court on the basis of “forged” documents, and that his decision to move the Telangana High Court in connection with a case registered in Assam amounted to a “complete abuse of process” and constituted “forum choosing”.
“Mere renting or owning a property somewhere cannot confer territorial jurisdiction [upon the courts there]… If this is permitted, a person could acquire properties across the country and seek anticipatory bail from any forum of their choosing. This is forum-shopping, if not forum-choosing,” he said.
He further submitted that although Mr. Khera had justified approaching the Telangana High Court on the ground that his wife resided in Hyderabad and that he frequently stayed there, his Aadhaar card reflected his residential address in New Delhi.
Taking note of these submissions, the Bench pointed out that Mr. Khera had sought an extension of the interim protection by a further three weeks, and proceeded to stay the High Court’s order.
The case arises from a press conference addressed by Mr. Khera on April 4, in which he alleged that the Assam Chief Minister’s wife held three passports issued by different countries and levelled allegations of illegality against Mr. Sarma. An FIR was registered by the Guwahati Crime Branch on April 5, following which the Delhi residence of the Congress leader was searched on April 7. On the same day, he approached the Telangana High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
While granting interim protection, the High Court had imposed conditions restraining Mr. Khera from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and barred him from leaving the country without prior permission of the court. He had also been directed to approach the jurisdictional court in Assam and seek appropriate relief within a week.
“The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of arrest in connection with the crime on his executing a personal bond for Rs 1 lakh with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer,” the High Court had said, directing that Mr. Khera must cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for questioning as required.
Before the High Court, Mr. Khera had alleged that the FIR was motivated by “political vendetta” and was an attempt to silence him. The Assam Police, however, had opposed the plea on the ground of maintainability, contending that the FIR was registered in Assam, and the petition had been filed before a court lacking territorial jurisdiction.
Post a Comment