A political war of words erupted on Friday after the Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in a case linked to remarks on Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, with senior Congress MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Sarma trading sharp barbs over the ruling.
The exchange followed Singhvi’s appeal to the Assam chief minister to “reconsider his stand” in light of the apex court’s observations, prompting a blistering response from Sarma.
Invoking the Supreme Court’s relief to Khera, Singhvi said the ruling reinforced the principle that arrest should be “not the first but the last resort”.
Referring to the May 4 Assam Assembly election counting, Singhvi said Sarma “may well head to a victory two days later or may not”.
“There is also a larger issue,” Singhvi said, adding, “Let me preface it by saying I am nobody to advise the CM of Assam.”
He further said, “I, with folded hands, request the CM of Assam… does he not wish that he should genuinely reconsider his stand as reflected in the judgment?”
Singhvi said remarks attributed to the Assam chief minister and cited in the judgment were “unrepeatable, unprintable and unstatable”.
He said even the Supreme Court had not reproduced parts of the material placed before it, adding that such language “truly debases our democracy” and “devalues it”.
Singhvi argued that expressing regret, even without being asked to apologise, could “actually elevate” the chief minister.
He also noted that the apex court had underlined these observations and that the Solicitor General had neither justified nor supported the statements.
Responding in a post on X, Sarma said he did not need “lessons on democracy, public discourse or decency” from Singhvi.
I don’t need lessons on democracy, public discourse or decency from anyone, especially from @DrAMSinghvi . Decency and him can never be in the same room.
— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) May 1, 2026
The real issue here pertains to a woman - who has nothing to do with politics - but has her character assassinated on…
“I don’t need lessons on democracy, public discourse or decency from anyone, especially from @DrAMSinghvi. Decency and him can never be in the same room,” Sarma said.
He added that the matter concerned “a woman who has nothing to do with politics,” whose character, he alleged, was attacked “on national television using forged documents from other countries.”
Sarma said he was confident courts would take note and that “the guilty will be punished” for what he described as a “brazen act” aimed at influencing electoral outcomes.
He further said, “It’s easy to speak on a platform where I am not present to respond. That is not called a debate—it is simply avoiding a fair exchange.”
“This is just the beginning, not the end,” he added.
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh welcomed the ruling and described it as a reaffirmation of constitutional safeguards.
“The Constitution has won today... It is a day of happiness,” he said.
“We welcome the Supreme Court's decision. We will keep trying, but today's decision tells the public that the protectors of the Constitution are still alive,” he added.
A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar granted Khera anticipatory bail, observing that the case appeared to be driven more by political rivalry than by the need for custodial interrogation.
The court said the allegations and counter-allegations were prima facie politically motivated and that their truthfulness could be examined during trial.
It further noted that observations related to Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were not justified.
The Supreme Court directed Khera to cooperate fully with the investigation, appear before police when required, and refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
He has also been barred from leaving India without prior permission, while the trial court has been allowed to impose additional conditions if required.
The court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail plea and would not affect the merits of the case.
Khera had approached the apex court challenging an April 24 order of the Gauhati High Court denying him anticipatory bail.
The high court had said custodial interrogation could be required, citing Section 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (forgery), after Assam Police alleged the documents relied upon by Khera were fabricated.
The Supreme Court, however, noted that the FIR itself did not mention Section 339 and said the high court’s observations on that offence did not appear correct.
