In a significant legal confrontation, Amritpal Singh, the elected Member of Parliament (MP) from Khadoor Sahib, Punjab, has petitioned the Punjab and Haryana High Court for permission to attend the ongoing sessions of the Lok Sabha. Detained under the National Security Act (NSA) since April 2023 and currently held in Dibrugarh Central Jail, Assam, Singh contends that his prolonged absence from parliamentary proceedings not only undermines his constitutional duties but also risks the potential forfeiture of his parliamentary seat.
Singh's detention stems from his leadership of the organization "Waris Punjab De" and subsequent arrest during a crackdown by Punjab Police. Despite his incarceration, he secured his parliamentary seat in the 2024 general elections, reflecting the trust of approximately 19 lakh constituents in Khadoor Sahib. However, his inability to attend parliamentary sessions has led to concerns about adequate representation for his electorate.
Central to Singh's legal argument is Article 101(4) of the Indian Constitution, which stipulates that if a member of either House of Parliament is absent without permission for a period of sixty consecutive days, the House may declare their seat vacant. Singh emphasizes that his absence is involuntary, resulting from preventive detention, and asserts that this should not be grounds for declaring his seat vacant. He has formally requested permission from the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate to attend sessions, but has yet to receive a response.
In response to Singh's petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court sought clarification from the Union Government regarding the existence of a parliamentary committee responsible for granting leave to MPs unable to attend sessions. Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain informed the court that such a committee, comprising 14 members, was constituted on February 24, 2025. This committee is tasked with reviewing applications from MPs seeking leave due to various reasons, including detention. The court has adjourned the hearing to allow for further deliberation on Singh's application.
The case brings to light the delicate balance between national security concerns and the democratic imperative of representation. While preventive detention under the NSA is a tool for maintaining public order, it raises questions about the rights of elected representatives and their constituents' need for representation. Legal experts point out that the constitutional provision allows for discretion, as the House "may" declare a seat vacant, suggesting that involuntary absences due to detention could be exempted, especially if the MP seeks formal leave.
Precedents exist where MPs have been granted leave during periods of detention. For instance, in 2023, Atul Rai, a Bahujan Samaj Party MP, was granted leave for 23 consecutive sittings while incarcerated. These instances underscore the importance of a case-by-case assessment, considering the unique circumstances surrounding each MP's absence.
Singh's petition also references a recent Delhi High Court decision granting custody parole to Baramulla MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh, allowing him to attend parliamentary proceedings despite being detained under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. This precedent bolsters Singh's argument for the necessity of his presence in Parliament to fulfill his legislative duties and ensure his constituency's representation.
As the judiciary deliberates on this matter, the outcome will have significant implications for the rights of detained MPs and the legislative representation of their constituencies. The case underscores the need to harmonize legal provisions concerning preventive detention with the democratic principles of representation and parliamentary privilege.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.