SC grants anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera, cites political rivalry in Assam defamation case 

Congress leader faces charges over remarks against CM’s wife; top court says liberty must be protected in politically charged complaints

Supreme Court intervenes

The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera in a criminal defamation and forgery case registered by Assam Police. A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar set aside the Gauhati High Court’s earlier order that had refused pre-arrest protection to the leader.

The court observed that the circumstances surrounding the case indicated an element of political rivalry, adding that personal liberty cannot be compromised in disputes that appear to stem from electoral or ideological conflict.

Case filed after press conference remarks

The legal trouble for Khera began after he alleged at a recent press conference that Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan, held multiple foreign passports and had undisclosed assets abroad. The complaint, filed by Bhuyan, triggered an FIR that included charges of defamation, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.

Assam Police officials travelled to Khera’s Delhi residence on 7 April, but he was not present at the time. Khera then sought legal recourse through the Telangana High Court, which granted him transit anticipatory bail for one week on 10 April.

Timeline of legal moves

That relief was short-lived. On 15 April, the Supreme Court stayed the Telangana High Court’s order following an appeal from the Assam government. Two days later, the top court refused to extend the transit bail period and directed Khera to approach the Gauhati High Court instead.

Khera complied, arguing in his petition before the Gauhati bench that his statements were made in a political and public context during a press conference. He claimed the FIR was nothing more than an act of political vendetta, especially since the complainant was the Chief Minister’s wife.

High Court had sought custodial interrogation

On 24 April, the Gauhati High Court rejected his plea. In its order, the bench said custodial interrogation was necessary to identify the sources who provided Khera with the documents he had cited. The court also observed that while political criticism of a sitting chief minister might be excusable as political rhetoric, dragging an “innocent woman” into the matter changed the nature of the case.

It clarified that this was not a simple defamation case and noted that Khera had not yet substantiated his claims with evidence.

What the Supreme Court said

After the high court’s refusal, Khera moved the Supreme Court again. The bench on Wednesday said liberty must be protected, especially when the alleged offence is rooted in political rivalry. While the court did not comment on the truth of Khera’s original claims, it made it clear that anticipatory bail should not be denied lightly when personal liberty is at stake.

In a dramatic twist to a long-running legal saga, the Supreme Court of India has cleared the air but passed the buck. The apex court on Wednesday transferred all pending petitions related to the contentious 27% OBC reservation in Madhya Pradesh back to the Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. While this might sound like a step backward, the fine print of the judgment offers a significant breather to the Mohan Yadav government in Bhopal and lakhs of OBC aspirants waiting for government jobs .

This legal shuffle, which has been ongoing since the Congress government first introduced the quota in 2019, finally has a clear directive: the High Court will now decide the constitutional validity of increasing OBC reservation from 14% to 27%. But here is the political and administrative kicker—the Supreme Court has made it clear that there is no stay on the implementation of this quota.

The 'Hold' is Finally Off

For years, the single biggest roadblock for recruiting agencies like the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) and the Employee Selection Board (ESB) was the confusion over the "87:13 formula." Under this arrangement, while 87% of vacancies were being filled, 13% of posts were kept in a "hold" status due to the pending litigation.

The Supreme Court has now effectively dismantled this logjam. By clarifying that the absence of a stay means the law is operational, the ball is now firmly in the government's court. "The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the approximately 13% posts that were held back are now up to the state government's policy to unlock," legal experts confirmed following the hearing . This means if the Yadav government wants to push through with recruitments at the pre-2019 levels or the new enhanced level, the legal hurdle has been removed.

A Judicial Reprimand and a Reality Check

However, the order wasn't just a technical transfer; it came with a strong dose of judicial candor. Sources indicate that the bench was less than impressed with the state government's conduct during the hearings. There was a pointed observation regarding the "unnecessary delays" caused in the proceedings .

This stems from an incident just weeks ago when the court had pulled up the Madhya Pradesh government for its lawyers not being present during crucial hearings. On January 29, 2026, when the final arguments were scheduled, the government counsel was notably absent, leading to an adjournment and visible judicial irritation . The Supreme Court noted that transferring the case back to the High Court was not just about jurisdiction, but also about ensuring that the factual matrix regarding population and geographical conditions is best assessed by the High Court itself.

Why This Matters Now

So, why is this the biggest news for Madhya Pradesh today? Because this isn't just about a legal technicality; it is about political credit and electoral promises.

- The Congress Legacy: It was the Kamal Nath-led Congress government in 2019 that pushed the ordinance to raise the quota, betting big on the OBC vote bank. They argued that since OBCs constitute nearly 48% of the state's population, 27% reservation was their due .

- The BJP's Dilemma: When the BJP returned to power under Shivraj Singh Chouhan and now Mohan Yadav (himself an OBC face), they inherited this legal mess. While they support the reservation politically, the legal defense has been shaky.

With the case now back in Gwalior, the High Court will have to determine if breaching the 50% ceiling set by the Indra Sawhney verdict is permissible. Currently, with SC, ST, EWS, and existing OBC quota, the total reservation in MP already touches 60%. Adding 27% for OBC would push it to a staggering 73% .

The Road Ahead: Politics and Appointments

The Supreme Court’s decision to "remand" the matter also sends a subtle message: the High Court is the best forum to examine local data. This means we are likely to see the High Court scrutinize the caste and economic data to see if the "extraordinary circumstances" required to breach the 50% limit actually exist in Madhya Pradesh.

For now, the Mohan Yadav government has been handed a double-edged sword. On one hand, they can immediately start the process to fill those 13% held vacancies, bringing cheer to thousands of young voters. On the other hand, if the High Court eventually strikes down the 27% quota, the political fallout will be massive.

In the corridors of power, the chatter has already begun. The opposition Congress is accusing the BJP of "delaying tactics" and being "hostile" to OBCs, pointing to the absence of lawyers in the apex court. The BJP, meanwhile, is projecting this as a "victory," claiming they have unlocked the recruitment process.

The Bottom Line: For the common OBC youth in Indore, Bhopal, or Gwalior waiting for a government job, the message is clear—the legal blockade is gone. The government now has no excuse to hold back recruitment. Whether they will act on it before the High Court delivers its final verdict is the million-rupee question that will dominate the state's political narrative in the coming weeks.

Supreme Court Restores Attempt to Rape Charge, Overturns Allahabad High Court Order in POCSO Case

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court restores attempt to rape charge in a controversial case from Uttar Pradesh, overturning a March 2025 order of the Allahabad High Court. The apex court ruled that acts such as groping a minor, breaking her pyjama string, and attempting to drag her to a secluded spot clearly fall within the ambit of attempt to rape.

The verdict, delivered by a bench headed by Chief Justice Suryakant of the Supreme Court of India, comes after the top court took suo motu cognisance of the High Court’s observations, which had sparked widespread criticism across legal and civil society circles.

Background of the Kasganj Minor Assault Case

The case relates to a 2021 incident in Kasganj district of Uttar Pradesh. According to the complaint filed by the victim’s mother in January 2022, three youths allegedly stopped her 14-year-old daughter on the pretext of dropping her home.

The accused reportedly:

 Touched the minor’s private parts

 Attempted to drag her under a culvert

 Broke the string of her pyjama

 Allegedly threatened bystanders with a country-made pistol

A case was registered under relevant sections of the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). The special POCSO court in Kasganj issued summons in 2023.

Allahabad High Court Verdict Triggered Controversy

On March 17, 2025, the Allahabad High Court held that the alleged acts did not amount to rape or attempt to rape. It dropped IPC Section 376 and Section 18 of the POCSO Act, directing that the accused be tried under lesser charges related to sexual harassment.

The Allahabad High Court verdict drew sharp criticism. Legal experts argued that such reasoning diluted the seriousness of sexual crimes against minors and risked setting a troubling precedent.

Supreme Court’s Strong Observations

The Supreme Court restores attempt to rape charge, stating unequivocally that physical acts demonstrating clear sexual intent and preparation can constitute attempt to rape.

Earlier, while staying the High Court’s order, the bench had observed that certain remarks reflected an “insensitive and inhuman approach.” The court also cautioned judicial authorities against using language that could intimidate victims or discourage them from pursuing justice.

During hearings in December 2025, the apex court emphasized that judicial reasoning must remain sensitive in cases involving minors, especially under the POCSO framework.

Why This Judgment Matters Now

At a time when crimes against women and minors remain a major concern, this ruling reinforces:

 A stricter interpretation of sexual assault laws

 Protection of minors under the POCSO Act

 Judicial accountability in sensitive cases

Legal experts believe the judgment may guide future courts in interpreting what constitutes “attempt” in sexual offence cases. It also signals that higher courts will intervene if lower court rulings appear to undermine victim protection.

Practical Takeaways

For legal practitioners and observers:

 Courts may adopt a broader interpretation of “attempt” in sexual crimes.

 POCSO-related cases will likely see stricter judicial scrutiny.

 Victim-sensitive language in judgments is now under sharper focus.

By overturning the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court restores attempt to rape charge and sends a strong message on safeguarding minors’ rights. The ruling not only corrects a controversial interpretation but also strengthens the legal framework protecting children under Indian law.

As debates around judicial sensitivity and women’s safety continue nationwide, this landmark decision is likely to shape future legal discourse and reinforce public trust in the justice system.