The Assam government contended before the Supreme Court that Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera's statement against Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a part of a "wider conspiracy to degrade and destabilise the nation" and also opposed his plea to club the three FIRs against him at one place.
In an affidavit, the Assam government said: "The verbal defamatory attack on a high constitutional functionary is part of a wider conspiracy to degrade and destabilise the nation."
It added that "at the outset it is pointed out that apart from the fact that there cannot be any apology for having committed a criminal offence, it is manifest that only the counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner tenders an apology. The petitioner has neither tendered any apology in the petition nor has tendered any apology after this court passed an order on February 23, 2023".
The affidavit said the submission made before the court tendering an apology clearly appears to be a tactical submission to get a preventive order without any genuine remorse or repentance. "A closer look at the available audio video clearly reveals that the petitioner has mischievously uttered sentences not only with an extreme degree of irresponsibility but reducing the level of discourse at its lowest," it added.
The affidavit contended that Assam FIR is wider in scope and may be treated as the leading FIR and other FIRs (two registered in UP) may be transferred and clubbed.
"It is seen that the FIR registered at Dima Hasao, Assam is qualitatively different in its scope, as compared to the FIRS at Lucknow and Varanasi. Thus, even the scope of investigation, especially the criminal conspiracy being a distinct offence, would need to be independently investigated," said the affidavit, opposing the transfer and clubbing of Assam FIR with the FIR at Lucknow.
The Uttar Pradesh government, in a counter affidavit, argued that the petitioner is also seeking indulgence of the apex court to stall due investigations into deliberate utterances of defamatory words relating to one of the highest constitutional functionaries of the country.
In reference to Lucknow FIR, the affidavit said: "It was stated in the FIR that the name of the Late father of the Prime Minister has deliberately been uttered as Gautam Das by the petitioner and he has further deliberately sarcastically stated that though the name is 'Damodar Das' but his work is similar to that of 'Gautam Das'."
It added that investigating agencies at Lucknow and Varanasi are in the process of ascertaining the truth and in that process have recorded statements of complainants and other witnesses. The investigating agencies are following due mandate of law as enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as directions passed by the apex court in a catena of judgments, it said.
Seeking dismissal of Khera's plea, the affidavit said, "It is submitted that the petition under Article 32 constitutes an attempt of leapfrogging the routine normal procedure available under the Cr.P.C."
On Friday, the Supreme Court extended the interim bail granted to Khera and listed the matter for further hearing on March 17.
On February 27, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Assam, and Additional Advocate General Garima Prasad, representing Uttar Pradesh, had sought time to file their response in the matter. The apex court had then extended the interim bail till March 3.
On February 23, the Supreme Court protected Khera, saying that he will be released on interim bail upon production before the magistrate in Delhi and the interim relief is till Tuesday.
The top court had then told senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Khera, that: "We have protected you but there has to be some level of discourse...". The court agreed to hear Khera's plea to club all FIRs at one place.
Khera was arrested after he was forced to de-board an IndiGo flight to Raipur, where the Congress was holding a plenary session.
After Khera was stopped from boarding the flight, Congress leaders and workers staged a protest at the airport.
Within hours the top court was approached and a bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud granted him interim protection from arrest. New Delhi, March 3 (IANS)