The Punjab and Haryana High Court has intervened in the parole plea of incarcerated Member of Parliament Amritpal Singh, directing the Punjab government to present the foundational material that led to the denial of his request. The Waris Punjab De chief, currently detained under the National Security Act (NSA) in Assam's Dibrugarh jail, had sought temporary parole to attend the ongoing Winter Session of Parliament.
Court Directs State to Produce Evidence
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry issued the directive on Monday after extensive arguments. The court observed that it could not adjudicate the legality of the state's decision without examining the material on which the rejection order was based. The Punjab government has been given time until next Monday to file the complete record.
The hearing saw representation from Senior Advocate R S Bains for Amritpal Singh, Senior Advocate Anupam Gupta for the state of Punjab, and Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain for the Union of India. The state's counsel assured the bench that all constitutional and statutory procedures under the NSA had been followed and that the grounds for detention were serious and backed by voluminous material.
Defence Argues for Parliamentary Duty, State Cites Security Threat
Amritpal Singh's counsel, R S Bains, contended that the state had misused its discretion under Section 15 of the NSA by issuing a cryptic rejection order. He argued that his client, as a sitting MP from Khadoor Sahib, was not seeking to enter Punjab but only wished to discharge his parliamentary duties. Bains highlighted that his constituency was grappling with severe flooding, an issue he needed to raise in the House.
"How does this harm national security? Discretion must be lawful, rational and fair. They must explain why attendance in Parliament poses danger," Bains argued. He further proposed a compromise, suggesting that Amritpal Singh could be permitted to attend the Parliament session virtually from custody, with strict conditions. He cited the precedent of courts functioning virtually and argued that the necessary infrastructure existed in both jails and Parliament.
State's Stern Opposition on Security Grounds
Opposing any relief, the state's counsel, Anupam Gupta, submitted that allowing Amritpal Singh any platform—physical or virtual—carried grave risks for national and state security. "A single speech can pose serious danger to the safety and survival of Punjab and the nation. It can set the five rivers on fire. One can only err on the side of caution," Gupta told the court.
He asserted that the state's apprehension was grounded in Amritpal Singh's background and alleged conduct, making the exercised discretion justified. Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain supported this stance, confirming that there was no provision in Parliament's rules for members to attend sessions via videoconferencing. "Members have to be present on the floor of the House. Otherwise, anybody from anywhere could claim a right to speak," Jain stated.
The bench examined relevant legal precedents, including a Delhi High Court case concerning custody parole for an MP, though it was noted that the larger question in that matter remains pending. With the state ordered to produce the foundational material, the High Court's next hearing scheduled for Monday will be crucial in determining the balance between an elected representative's duty and perceived national security imperatives.
