HC to hear detained MP Amritpal Singh's parole plea on November 21

A day after Lok Sabha member Amritpal Singh moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking temporary release to attend the upcoming winter session of Parliament from December 1 to 19, a Division Bench today fixed the case for hearing on Friday. Detained in Dibrugarh under the National Security Acts, he has invoked Section 15 of the NSA, which empowers the competent authority to grant parole to a detainee in exceptional circumstances.

At the onset, his counsel told the Bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu that his earlier plea was disposed of with a liberty to forward a proper representation to Lok Sabha, which “has been made”. The Bench, during the course of proceedings, questioned his counsel on the fate of the plea challenging his detention. “He has NSA detention order against him, what happened to that case… Unless the detention is stayed, how can he join the Parliament?” the chief questioned.

In response, his counsel contended that the two matters were separate and the MP referred to the provisions of Section 15 to seek relief. “He was earlier also released to take oath. It was for four days,” the counsel added.

Amritpal’s plea, filed through counsel Imaan Singh Khara, states that despite being in preventive detention since April 2023, the petitioner was elected from the Khadoor Sahib constituency in the 2024 General Election with nearly four lakh votes and continues to represent about 19 lakh constituents. He has sought a mandamus directing the Union and state authorities to permit his release on parole, or in the alternative, to arrange his personal attendance in the House during the session.

The petition recounts that a third detention order was issued against him on April 17 this year while he was lodged in Central Jail, Dibrugarh. The Advisory Board subsequently was of the opinion that sufficient cause existed for his continued detention, following which the detention was confirmed on June 24. Representations seeking parole were submitted on November 13 but remain undecided.

Asserting that attending Parliament is a constitutional duty, the petitioner has urged the court to direct authorities to decide his representations in a time-bound manner. He has also sought any other appropriate relief warranted by the “peculiar facts and circumstances” of the case.