Assam [India], May 1 (ANI): Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Friday lashed back at Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi over the latter's remarks on 'democracy and decency.' He also accused the Congress party of using forged documents to defame his wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma.

Sarma's remarks came after the Supreme Court of India granted anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera.

The Assam Chief Minister has vowed legal action at the 'character assassination' stating that he does not 'need lessons on democracy, public discourse or decency' from Singhvi adding that decency and the Congress leader 'can never be in the same room.'

Taking to X, CM Sarma wrote, 'I don't need lessons on democracy, public discourse or decency from anyone, especially from AM Singhvi. Decency and him can never be in the same room.'

Sarma alleged that 'a woman who has nothing to do with politics' was subjected to character assassination on national television using 'forged documents.'

'The real issue here pertains to a woman - who has nothing to do with politics - but has her character assassinated on national television using FORGED documents from other countries. I am confident the courts will take note of this, sooner or later, and the guilty will be punished for his brazen act of maligning a woman's character using false documents to influence electoral outcomes,' Sarma said.

The Assam CM further criticised Singhvi for engaging in a public debate where he was not present to respond, calling it an attempt to avoid a fair exchange of views. He concluded his remarks by stating that the issue was 'just the beginning, not the end.'

'Also, Dr Singhvi, it's easy to speak on a platform where I am not present to respond. That is not called a debate- it is simply avoiding a fair exchange, one which you were espousing. And let me be clear, this is just the beginning, not the end,' Sarma said.

The controversy centres around allegations made by Congress leader Pawan Khera during an April press conference, where he claimed Sarma's wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, held multiple foreign passports and undisclosed assets. Sarma has dismissed these claims as baseless and alleged they were backed by 'forged documents' presented on national television to influence voters.

Meanwhile, earlier today, after Pawan Khera was granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court in an alleged defamation and forgery case linked to Assam Chief Minister's wife passport row, Singhvi urged Sarma to reflect on his public remarks cited in the judgment, noting that several statements recorded were unfit for repetition, and expressed concern that such language undermines democratic values.

Singhvi added that the Supreme Court had taken note of these observations and that the Solicitor General did not justify or support them.

'There is also a larger issue. Let me preface it by saying I am nobody--and I mean it--to advise the CM of Assam. He may well head to a victory two days later; these are the vicissitudes of democracy and politics. But I, with folded hands, request the CM of Assam--presently caretaker CM for two more days before the verdict comes out--does he not wish that he should genuinely reconsider his stand as reflected in the judgment?,' said Singhvi.

'Quoted in the judgment, the statements made by him in the public domain and quoted extensively by the Supreme Court over almost three pages: most are unrepeatable, unprintable, and unstatable. But you can read it now. Even the Supreme Court has not reproduced what my petition reproduced. So I, with humility and without any condescension, say that this truly debases our democracy. It devalues it. It makes us no different from the constitutional wrecks and ruins which we find in our neighbourhood. I guess 'unparliamentary language' is the mildest word in the dictionary. But without asking him to reconsider or apologise--and as I said, I am nobody--if he were to do it and express regret, he would be actually elevating himself. The Supreme Court has categorically underlined those observations, only partially quoted, and the Supreme Court has underlined that the Solicitor General neither justified nor supported those statements,' Singhvi stressed. (ANI)