On Friday, the Supreme Court of India officially refused to extend the transit anticipatory bail that had previously been granted to Congress leader Pawan Khera by the Telangana High Court. This legal development stems from a First Information Regional (FIR) filed against the politician in the state of Assam. A judicial bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed Khera’s request for continued legal protection.

Instead, the bench directed him to present himself before the appropriate competent court in Assam to seek regular anticipatory bail. Prior to this hearing, the apex court had already placed a stay on the transit bail provided by the High Court, acting upon a petition formally filed by the Assam police.

Representing Khera, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appealed to the court for a brief extension of the transit relief until Tuesday. This window, he explained to the bench, would allow his client enough time to formally submit a bail application in Assam on Monday. Dr. Singhvi argued that the initial petition in Telangana was filed in a hurried manner. He attributed the submission of a forged identity document to a simple oversight, referring to it as a minor document mix-up.

The document in question was used to prove residency when Khera originally applied for bail in Telangana. During the proceedings, it was revealed that the submission consisted of the front side of Khera’s own Aadhaar card paired alongside the reverse side of his wife’s Aadhaar card. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, arguing on behalf of the Assam government, had previously brought this critical issue to the court's attention, emphasizing that an incorrect and invalid document was deliberately used to invoke the jurisdiction of the Telangana courts.

In defense of this action, Dr. Singhvi informed the bench that the mistake was entirely genuine and had already been addressed and clarified before the High Court. He strongly urged that the Supreme Court’s previous ex-parte stay should not negatively impact his client's fundamental right to personal liberty, a protection guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Furthermore, Dr. Singhvi categorized the FIR originating from Assam as essentially a standard defamation complaint, openly questioning the necessity for the Assam police to pursue the Congress leader with such aggressive tactics.

However, the two-judge bench remained unconvinced by the defense's characterization of the document discrepancy as a trivial mistake. Justice Maheshwari specifically pushed back against the idea that presenting fraudulent identification to a court of law could be brushed aside lightly. Addressing the defense counsel directly, the judge asked, “Small error? You are saying this is a small error?” In response, Dr. Singhvi maintained that what was a genuine oversight was being unfairly painted as an intentional forgery by the authorities in Assam, reiterating that the matter had been resolved at the High Court level.

Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court firmly refused to accept the reasoning and formally declined the request for an extension. The bench did, however, issue a clarification to ensure a fair process moving forward: neither the observations made in its own stay order dated April 15 nor the rulings from the Telangana High Court should influence the Assam court when it eventually evaluates Khera’s regular anticipatory bail application. The justices additionally noted that if the designated court in Assam happens to be closed due to holidays, Khera's legal team could submit an appropriate request following standard prevailing judicial practices.

This firm stance aligns with the Supreme Court's earlier action on April 15, where it halted the Telangana High Court's one-week transit bail order. At that time, the apex court noted its surprise that legal relief was granted in Telangana for a criminal offense that was officially registered in Assam.

Origins of the Legal Dispute

The legal troubles for the Congress leader began with an FIR registered at the Guwahati Crime Branch Police Station. The complaint was formally lodged by Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, the wife of Himanta Biswa Sarma, the Chief Minister of Assam. The police invoked a wide array of serious provisions under the newly implemented Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. These charges encompass making false statements in connection with an election, criminal conspiracy, cheating, and the forgery of valuable securities and public records. Furthermore, the FIR includes accusations of using forged documents as if they were genuine, intentional insult, and defamation.

The catalyst for this extensive legal action was a press conference conducted by Pawan Khera in New Delhi on April 5, 2026. This event took place during the height of the Assam Assembly election campaign. During the briefing, Khera publicly accused Riniki Bhuyan Sharma of holding three separate foreign passports, specifically claiming she possessed travel documents from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt, and Antigua and Barbuda. Khera went on to allege that the Chief Minister's family had secretly concealed assets amounting to a staggering ₹52,000 crore. According to his claims, these funds were hidden away using shell companies established in Wyoming, USA. To back up his explosive allegations, Khera displayed various purported documents as evidence before the attending media.

The Fabricated Evidence Displayed

In the aftermath of the press conference, every document showcased by Khera has been systematically exposed as a crude forgery. The document presented as a UAE passport was, in reality, a digitally manipulated Emirates ID card, commonly known as a Golden Card. Investigators traced the original image of this ID to a lost wallet owned by a Pakistani national, which had been previously uploaded to a private Facebook group titled "Pakistani in Ajman." The fabricated UAE document circulated by the Congress party featured the exact identical 15-digit identification number as the lost card. Security experts and regional authorities noted that this duplication is an absolute impossibility under the UAE’s highly secure and strictly unique biometric numbering system. Similarly, the documents purported to be passports from Antigua and Barbuda, as well as Egypt, have been officially confirmed as fakes by the respective nations.

A closer examination of the papers revealed numerous glaring discrepancies. These errors included basic wrong spelling of names and significant mismatches in the technical details located within the Machine Readable Zone (MRZ), alongside several other inconsistencies.

The allegations concerning the American corporate entities were also heavily scrutinized. It was discovered that the companies cited by Khera were registered entirely online through the Wyoming Secretary of State portal. This automated process requires a mere nominal fee of USD 199 and involves virtually no background verification. Public records indicate that one of these companies was filed on April 3, while another was registered shortly after the press conference concluded on April 5. To publicly demonstrate the lack of security and how easily such entities can be created on that specific portal, the Assam branch of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) logged on and successfully registered a mock company under the name "GauravElizabeth786 LLC."

Furthermore, Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma highlighted the logistical absurdity of the accusations. He pointed out the practical impossibility of routing or concealing ₹52,000 crore through a United States shell company that was barely a day old, especially in the middle of an active election campaign and under the watchful eye of strict foreign exchange and banking regulations.

The claims did not end there, nor did the debunking. Properties located in Dubai that Khera alleged belonged to the Chief Minister's wife were investigated and found to be legally owned by entirely different individuals. It became evident that the Congress had digitally altered names and specific details on publicly available property records to support their narrative.

Consequently, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma proceeded with the FIR against Pawan Khera. Additionally, both she and Chief Minister Sarma have initiated comprehensive criminal and civil defamation proceedings in response to his allegations utilizing forged documents. Now, with the Supreme Court declining any further extension of his transit relief, Khera is legally required to seek anticipatory bail directly from a court in Assam, where the investigation into the forgery and related offenses actively continues.