The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken up a petition filed by Khadoor Sahib Member of Parliament Amritpal Singh, who is currently detained under the National Security Act (NSA), challenging the refusal of the Punjab Government to grant him temporary release or parole to attend the ongoing Budget Session of Parliament. The Court’s proceedings focused on the interplay between his detention under a stringent preventive law and his constitutional role as an elected representative seeking to be present in Parliament to represent his constituents.
Amritpal Singh is lodged in Dibrugarh Central Jail in Assam under preventive detention under the National Security Act, having been arrested in April 2023. Despite being in custody, he successfully contested the 2024 General Election from the Khadoor Sahib constituency in Punjab, securing a mandate from nearly nineteen lakh voters. His detention has, however, prevented him from attending Parliament sittings following his election. The Budget Session of Parliament is being convened in two phases, the first from late January and the second scheduled from early March through early April. Singh’s petition seeks suitable arrangements for his personal attendance during the entire Budget Session, asserting that as an MP he wishes to discharge his constitutional duty to represent his electorate in legislative debates and raise issues impacting his constituency.
In his plea before the High Court, Amritpal sought quashing of the Punjab Government’s order rejecting his earlier representation for temporary release to attend Parliament. He contended that the order of refusal was “illegal, vague, unreasonable and cryptic”. The petition emphasised his desire to present issues faced by his constituency, including the impact of floods and the menace of drug abuse, in Parliament, and argued that denial of parole undermined democratic representation and the will of his electorate.
During the hearing, a Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Sanjiv Berry inquired whether an MP could participate in parliamentary proceedings through virtual means. In response, the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union Government informed the Court that there is no provision under the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha that permits a Member of Parliament to attend or participate virtually from detention facilities. This clarification underlined the legal limitations on virtual participation for parliamentary business, reinforcing the basis for the petition seeking physical attendance.
The High Court noted from submissions before it that his representations for temporary release were dismissed by the State Government on the ground of “serious threat/prejudice to the security of the State and the maintenance of public order”. In light of these submissions and the challenges presented by the ongoing session schedule, the Court sought a formal response from the Punjab Government to the petition within ten days, thereby providing the State an opportunity to justify its earlier refusal or reconsider the application.
Amritpal’s detention and his inability to attend Parliament also raised matters concerning parliamentary rules on attendance. Under Lok Sabha rules, a Member’s absence without permission for a prolonged period may attract disqualification if it exceeds a specified number of sittings. Singh’s plea underscored that his continued confinement, without being permitted to attend sessions, effectively deprived his constituency of full representation in the House. It was also highlighted that he is being detained as a civil prisoner without trial in relation to the NSA cases, adding to the urgency of addressing his absence from parliamentary proceedings.
The High Court’s interim focus remains on the procedural aspects of the petition, requiring the State to file its detailed response. The proceedings did not grant immediate relief such as parole or temporary release but moved the matter forward by ensuring the Court will consider the State’s response before deciding on the petitioner’s entitlement to attend Parliament. In doing so, the Court acknowledged the constitutional and democratic questions at play, balancing considerations of law and order cited by the State against the institutional role of an elected legislator.
The case reflects the emerging legal discourse on the rights of detained elected representatives and the mechanisms available for them to participate in legislative functions, particularly under preventive detention regimes. The High Court’s directive for a formal response within a stipulated timeline ensures that the matter will be scrutinised further, and that the arguments of both the petitioner and the State will be examined before any final judicial determination on whether temporary release or parole should be granted for the purpose of attending the Budget Session.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.