The clash stems from statements made by Khera at a press conference on April 4 and amplified on April 5, when he alleged that Riniki Bhuyan Sharma held multiple passports and that details linked to foreign assets had not been properly disclosed. Those claims were flatly rejected by Sarma, who called them malicious and fabricated, and by his wife, who moved quickly to seek legal redress. The dispute has since moved out of the arena of campaign rhetoric and into the courts, with both sides presenting the issue as a test of political credibility.
Congress leaders have framed the case as retaliation rather than a straightforward legal response. Khera argued before the Telangana High Court that the FIR was driven by political vendetta and an ulterior motive to silence and intimidate him. That line has now been reinforced by Gandhi’s public intervention, which signals that the party intends to nationalise the issue instead of treating it as a state-level quarrel. For Congress, the argument is that the use of police action against an opposition figure fits a broader pattern in which political criticism is met with criminal process.
Assam’s government and Sarma’s camp have advanced a sharply different version. They say the issue is not political criticism but the publication of false and damaging allegations against a private individual tied to an elected office-holder. Sarma said the material circulated by Congress showed serious anomalies and described it as a crude attempt at digital manipulation. The response from his side has been calibrated to present the matter as one of defamation, false statements and possible fabrication rather than a mere war of words between rival parties.
The legal chronology has become central to the story. An FIR was registered by the Guwahati Crime Branch on April 5 following a complaint by Riniki Bhuyan Sharma. Police later searched Khera’s Delhi residence, while Khera moved the Telangana High Court seeking protection from arrest. On April 10, Justice K. Sujana granted him limited transit anticipatory bail for one week, allowing him time to approach the competent court in Assam. The court also ordered restraint, directing Khera not to make further public statements on the subject and requiring him to cooperate with investigators.
That relief did not settle the matter. Assam has already challenged the Telangana High Court’s order in the Supreme Court, arguing that the grant of transit anticipatory bail should be examined afresh. The state’s petition, filed through counsel in New Delhi, pushes the case into a higher judicial forum and ensures that the controversy will continue beyond the first round of protection granted to Khera. The move also underlines how quickly a campaign-season dispute in Assam has escalated into a nationally watched legal contest involving opposition leaders, a serving chief minister and competing claims of abuse of process.
Politically, the dispute lands at a charged moment for Assam. Sarma has been one of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s most aggressive campaigners and one of Congress’s most persistent targets in the state. Gandhi had already attacked him on the campaign trail, accusing him of corruption and inflammatory politics. By returning to the issue after the filing of the case against Khera, Gandhi has signalled that Congress sees potential value in portraying Sarma not only as a regional strongman but as a symbol of what it calls the misuse of state power against opponents.
