Amritpal Singh's leave petition: Parliament panel to recommend decision on March 10

Just over a week after the Lok Sabha Speaker constituted a 15-member committee to examine leave applications of absent Members of Parliament—including Amritpal Singh—the Centre today informed the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the matter had been considered, and the committee’s recommendations would be placed before Parliament on March 10.

As the matter came up for resumed hearing before the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain, along with advocate Dheeraj Jain, informed the Bench that the committee considered the leave requests of five MPs, including Amritpal Singh, during a meeting on Monday.

“The committee considered all the applications and decided to make its recommendations to the Lok Sabha. These recommendations shall be placed before the Lok Sabha on March 10. Thereafter, the final decision on their applications will be taken by the Lok Sabha,” Jain submitted.

He further informed the court that the proceedings of Parliament committees were confidential and could not be made public until placed before Parliament.

Amritpal Singh, the Member of Parliament from Khadoor Sahib and leader of Waris Punjab De, is currently detained in Dibrugarh Central Jail under the National Security Act.

In his petition, he has sought permission to attend parliamentary sessions, arguing that his prolonged absence violates his constitutional rights and leaves his constituency unrepresented. He has also pointed out that an absence exceeding 60 days can result in his seat being declared vacant, affecting nearly 19 lakh constituents.

He has further requested authorisation to meet officials and ministers regarding the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) to address local development projects.

Amritpal Singh submitted that he formally requested permission from the Lok Sabha Speaker on November 30 last year to attend the parliamentary session and was informed that he had already been absent from sittings for 46 days.

Despite representations to the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, he did not receive a response, prompting him to seek judicial intervention.