DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Hearing on Amritpal Singh’s plea on Feb 25

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today adjourned the hearing on MP Amritpal Singh's petition to February 25, allowing Additional Solicitor General of India Satya Pal Jain time to seek instructions in the matter. He was accompanied by advocate Dheeraj...
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Amritpal Singh. File photo
Advertisement
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today adjourned the hearing on MP Amritpal Singh's petition to February 25, allowing Additional Solicitor General of India Satya Pal Jain time to seek instructions in the matter. He was accompanied by advocate Dheeraj Jain during the hearing
Advertisement

The petition was placed before the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nago and Justice Sumeet Goel.

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

Advertisement

He had filed a petition seeking permission to attend parliamentary sessions, arguing that his prolonged absence violated his constitutional rights and left his constituency unrepresented.

Amritpal Singh emphasised that an absence exceeding 60 days could result in his seat being declared vacant, affecting nearly 19 lakh constituents. He also requested authorisation to meet with officials and ministers regarding the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme to address local developmental projects.

Advertisement

In his plea, Amritpal submitted that he formally requested permission from the Lok Sabha Speaker on November 30 last to attend the parliamentary session and was informed of a 46-day absence from sittings. Despite representations to the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, he had not received a response, prompting him to seek judicial intervention, he argued.

Amritpal Singh contended that his detention and resultant absence were involuntary, constituting forced exclusion that undermined the democratic process and the representation of his constituents.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Classifieds tlbr_img2 Videos tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 E-Paper tlbr_img5 Shorts