Supreme Court of India Reserves Order on Pawan Khera Bail Plea, Key Observations | NewsX

Added: 2026-05-07

[00:00:00]viewers, and we now move on to track the latest developments coming in in concern to Congress leader Pawan Khera. Now, the Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on the petition filed by Pawan Khera seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR that was registered by Assam police on the complaint by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, over Khera's allegation that she held multiple passports.

[00:00:26]A bench Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Ahathway Chandru Ahathway heard the Congress leader his plea against the Guwahati High Court's rejection of his anticipatory bail plea. Senior advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi for Khera stated that it was an unprecedented case as there were statements by the boss of the boss of the boss of the prosecutor referring to certain public statements made by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.

[00:01:00]Singhvi said that he cannot read in open court some of the statements of Sarma as there are unprintable words.

[00:01:08]He said that Sarma has threatened that Khera will spend the rest of his life in an Assam jail. Those are the latest developments we are also coming in as far as Pawan Khera's bail plea is concerned.

[00:01:23]The Supreme Court has for now reserved its judgment on Pawan Khera's plea after Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife Riniki Bhuyan filed a complaint on him. Let's go across in fact to my colleague Sambhav Sharma reporting on this. Sambhav, court of course has reserved its judgments, but take us through the arguments that took place in court.

[00:01:48]Well, absolutely, the matter was before the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice J.K. Maheshwari and detailed arguments made in the Supreme Court before two-judge bench where on one hand senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi who appeared for Pawan Khera in this case made submissions and saying the important argument was that arrest is something which is not required. On the other hand, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made submissions in the court and and and if we talk about the detailed submissions made in the Supreme Court, let's start with the senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi. He said that arrest is not required unless aim is to humiliate or harass the accused. And also Abhishek Manu Singhvi has argued that arrest is not the first option and must be the last resort if necessary and said that the prosecution must show objective and cannot I mean these objectives cannot be achieved achieved without arrest. And these were important arguments and also he has argued that demand for arrest stems from angst reflected in the statements of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and not legal necessity. And also he submitted and on the other hand if I talk about a few arguments made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, he read out the complaint against Pawan Khera and also claimed that the documents being put by I mean earlier was put by Pawan Khera were fabricated and multiple citizenship allegations are false in nature. After these detailed arguments in the top court before the two-judge bench, the bench has reserved its order.

[00:03:40]It is to be seen what the Supreme Court says next.

[00:03:44]All right, Sambhav, thanks for those updates. Requested to stay on as we are getting another important case development at the Supreme Court. It was has now refused to entertain a plea seeking reversal of its April 24 order permitting termination of 30-week pregnancy of a minor rape survivor. The court underscored that in child rape cases the choice to continue or terminate pregnancy must rest with the victim. The bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant stated it cannot compel a 15-year-old to bear motherhood against her will and forcing continuation of pregnancy would cause lifelong trauma to the minor. The case also involved AIIMS which argued that a 30-week fetus is viable and termination may lead to severe complications for both child and mother.

[00:04:35]Sambhav, a crucial judgment there by the Supreme Court upholding the right of the victim to decide whether it wants to continue the pregnancy or not. Once again in this case, take us through the arguments of the court and the final decision of the court. Well, absolutely, this matter was before the bench led by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. Earlier also this matter came up before the Supreme Court and this time very important observations made by top court court while refusing to entertain the petition seeking reversal of its earlier order permitting the termination of 30-week pregnancy of a minor rape survivor. So, this is very important here and the court in a way underscored that child rape cases the choice to continue or to terminate pregnancy must rest with the victim. And also the the Chief Justice of India said that it cannot compel a 15-year-old to bear motherhood against her will.

[00:05:48]And the top court has observed that forcing continuation of pregnancy would cause lifelong trauma to minor. And the bench observed observed that in imagine the pain and humiliation. And in a way the top court has asked center to allow abortions beyond 15 weeks for rape survivors. So, it is up to the central government to consider it. And on the other hand if we talk about the detailed nitty-gritties of this case, the case I mean Aishwarya Bhati who appeared for All India Institute of Medical Sciences or doctors and she asked to consult the victim's parents and leave the final decision to them because AIIMS argued that 30-week fetus is viable and termination may lead to severe complications both to child and mother.

[00:06:51]And so, this was a case here the top court has said imagine the pain and the humiliation. And in a way Yes. All right, Sambhav, thank you very much for joining us and providing those updates. Viewers, for now we are taking a very quick break, but we'll be right back. Stay tuned.