Arrest can’t be a political weapon: Congress hails SC relief to Khera

The apex court granted pre-arrest bail to Khera in the Assam case linked to allegations against the wife of Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, observing that the dispute appeared to have its roots in political rivalry.

Addressing a press conference in the national capital, Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh and senior leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi said the verdict reinforced a core constitutional principle, “arrest is an exception, not the norm”.

Ramesh said the ruling marked a “victory of the Constitution”, alleging that constitutional values were routinely undermined but had prevailed in this instance. He added that the party’s faith in the judiciary stood reaffirmed.

“The judgment sends an unambiguous signal that when personal liberty is at stake, courts remain the ultimate safeguard,” Singhvi said. He stressed that arrest in cases involving reputational damage must be the last resort, not the first response, and questioned the necessity of custodial interrogation in a defamation-linked matter.

“Can investigation not proceed without arrest? Is custody the only route?” he asked, arguing that none of the established grounds for arrest, flight risk, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, were met. “In such circumstances, arrest risks becoming a tool for humiliation, harassment and political point-scoring,” he said.

He said the ruling reaffirms the “triple test” governing arrest and underscores that until guilt is established, no individual could be treated as culpable, even at the stage of interim relief.

Singhvi pointed out that nine provisions were invoked in the case, all of them bailable, yet there was a sustained push for arrest. He said this ran contrary to the settled law on anticipatory bail and the presumption of innocence.

Tracing the case’s trajectory, he said it moved rapidly across multiple courts, from a magistrate in Kamrup to the Telangana High Court, the Supreme Court, the Gauhati High Court and back, reflecting continuous recourse to judicial protection against coercive action.

He noted that a local magistrate had earlier rejected the Assam Government’s plea for arrest as “fanciful, speculative and unsubstantiated”, calling it a telling example of how lower courts act as a check on executive overreach.

The Congress leader also said that the Supreme Court had flagged concerns over certain observations in the Gauhati High Court order, noting that they appeared to travel beyond the scope of the original complaint and FIR.

On the political context, Singhvi said the court recognised that the remarks were made during an election campaign and that democratic systems must preserve space for political dissent. Curtailing such speech, he warned, would pose a direct challenge to the guarantee of free expression under Article 19(1)(a).

He also referred to portions of the judgment that cited public statements attributed to the Assam Chief Minister, describing them as inappropriate for a constitutional office. Urging reflection, Singhvi said that expressing regret would elevate democratic standards, though he made it clear that no apology was being formally sought.

He further noted that the Solicitor General did not defend the contentious remarks in court, calling it a significant aspect of the proceedings.

Welcoming the Supreme Court’s prompt intervention, Singhvi said the verdict carries a broader lesson, that faith in the law ultimately shields citizens from excess, and that “be you ever so high, the law is above you”.