icon
DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Careers Advertise with us Classifieds
Celebrate Baisakhi sale with Tribune| 8-20 April Subscribe Now
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Punjab govt yet to decide on Amritpal Singh's Parliament attendance

Khadoor Sahib MP is currently under preventive detention under the National Security Act (NSA)

  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Khadoor Sahib MP Amritpal Singh. File photo
Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court was informed that the Punjab Government had so far not passed any order "permitting or not permitting" Amritpal Singh to attend the Parliament session.

Advertisement

A statement to this effect was made by Additional Solicitor-General Satya Pal Jain before the Bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu. It came during the hearing of the Khadoor Sahib MP’s petition challenging his third detention order.

Advertisement

Amritpal Singh is currently under preventive detention under the National Security Act (NSA). The Bench, during the course of the hearing, was told that he had been in custody since March 23, 2023.

Advertisement

The High Court on January 23 had directed Punjab to decide within seven working days his representation seeking temporary release to attend the upcoming Budget Session of Parliament. Disposing of the writ petition, the Bench held that the power to grant temporary release under Section 15 of the National Security Act rested with the “appropriate Government” — which, in the present case, was the State government.

The court then ordered the Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Government of Punjab, to take a decision on the representation dated January 17 and to communicate the outcome forthwith to him and his counsel.

Advertisement

The petitioner, a sitting Member of Parliament, had sought parole or temporary release to attend the Budget Session scheduled in two phases — from January 28 to February 13 and from March 9 to April 2 — invoking his constitutional role as an elected representative. He had also complained that his representation to the authorities, including one addressed to the Home Secretary on January 17, remained undecided.

The order came amid arguments touching upon the scope of preventive detention vis-à-vis the constitutional rights and privileges of an elected Member of Parliament.

Read what others can’t with The Tribune Premium

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