The Congress party has refuted claims that Shyamkanu Mahanta’s lawyer, Advocate Raj Kamal, has any association with the party. The clarification comes at a time when Mahanta, a well-known entrepreneur and cultural activist from Assam, has approached the Supreme Court seeking protection of his fundamental rights following allegations surrounding the death of legendary singer Zubeen Garg.
In a statement released on Friday, the Congress said that reports linking Advocate Raj Kamal to the party were “misleading and factually incorrect.” According to the party, Raj Kamal is an independent legal professional with no official connection to the Indian National Congress.
The statement also highlighted his career record. Raj Kamal has previously worked with BJP leader Manjinder Singh Sirsa and assisted former Attorney General of India Mukul Rohatgi, who held office between 2014 and 2017. He also served as Deputy Advocate General of Punjab from July 2017 to September 2021, during the tenure of then Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh. Notably, Amarinder Singh later joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). 
By pointing to this background, Congress underlined that any attempt to portray Raj Kamal as a Congress-linked figure was incorrect. “The advocate is handling the litigation on his own,” the party said, stressing that dragging Congress into the matter was unjustified.
Meanwhile, developments around Shyamkanu Mahanta have continued to draw public attention. Mahanta, who has been at the center of controversy after the sudden passing of singer Zubeen Garg, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court on September 30 while he was in Singapore. The plea was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, which allows citizens to directly seek protection of their fundamental rights from the apex court.
In his petition, Mahanta claimed that he is being subjected to a “calculated witch-hunt” and accused certain media outlets of running “false and irresponsible narratives” linking him to Zubeen’s death. He said such stories had led to a “media trial” against him and created large-scale public anger without any evidence.
“The Petitioner seeks to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court as the sentinel on the qui vive to protect his life, limb and personal liberty,” the plea stated.
Mahanta argued that the allegations were baseless as he was in Singapore on September 19, 2025, the day of Zubeen’s death, overseeing preparations for a cultural festival that was scheduled from September 19 to 21. He said his last meeting with the singer had taken place two days earlier, on September 17, and he was not even present in India at the time of the incident.
The petition also expressed concern over what Mahanta described as “prejudicial conduct” by some senior government officials. According to him, certain state executives had made “derogatory remarks” about him on official social media accounts during the ongoing investigation. He claimed such public comments not only damaged his reputation but also risked influencing the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the case.
“The neutrality of the investigation has been compromised by these remarks, and the hostility against me is being aggravated further,” Mahanta’s plea contended. He added that the continuing speculation in media and official comments had already caused “irreparable damage” to his dignity and his right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has yet to take up the petition. Sources suggest the matter is likely to be listed for hearing only after October 6, once the court reopens following its brief break.
