The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday dismissed Khadoor Sahib MP Amritpal Singh’s plea seeking temporary release to attend the ongoing Budget session of Parliament. Among other things, a Division Bench of the high court held that a sitting MP under preventive detention enjoyed no higher constitutional privilege than an ordinary citizen and that individual liberty must yield to concerns of public order and state security.
Advertisement
Amritpal Singh had moved the court seeking the quashing of the Punjab Government’s order dated February 2, rejecting his application under Section 15 of the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, for temporary release. He had requested release to attend the Budget session convened in two phases from January 28 to February 13 and March 9 to April 2.
Advertisement
The Bench made it clear at the outset that Article 105 of the Constitution, dealing with powers and privileges of parliamentarians, did not confer any special or higher right upon a detained MP. Referring to the precedents, the court said, “It has been categorically held in all these authoritative decisions that no higher or special right is available to a preventively detained sitting MP, than an ordinary citizen. Therefore, a sitting MP as well as a common man would be subjected to the same privileges and obligations as contained in Section 15 of the NSA.”
Advertisement
Placing the issue in the broader constitutional framework, the court alluded to the primacy accorded to matters of preventive detention. It noted that the Constitution was federal in nature, but it accorded greater weight to the Union in several respects, including legislative competence under the Seventh Schedule. “The matters concerning preventive detention are delineated at item number 9 of List 1— Union List, which is indicative of the importance given to the subject matters of preventive detention,” it observed.
The court also referred to Article 22, which permitted preventive detention under specified conditions, leading to the enactment of the NSA. It asserted that the appropriate government under Section 15 had discretion to grant or refuse temporary release, with or without conditions.
Examining the impugned order, the Bench held there was “no constitutional or legal infirmity” in the rejection of temporary release. It relied upon reports of the District Magistrate, Amritsar, and the SSP (Rural), which indicated a continuing threat to public order and state security.
Elaborating on the legal principle governing such cases, the court observed: “Whenever the right to liberty of a person, who is suffering a preventive detention order, is pitched against public order and maintenance of security of state, the first and foremost thing which needs to be considered is as to whether granting of liberty would in any manner prejudice the concept of public order and security of the state.”
It added an individual’s liberty was rendered subservient and inconsequential, even if there was an iota of doubt in the competent authority’s mind about the possibility of a breach to public order or maintenance of state security.
The Bench further clarified that it could not examine the “veracity of the material” forming the basis of the apprehension regarding breach of public order after noting that such satisfaction was “subjective” and based on material available with the competent authority.
Concluding that “national interests are paramount when compared with personal interests,” the court upheld the state’s decision, stating: “We have no option but to uphold the impugned order.”
The Bench was assisted in the matter by senior advocate Anupam Gupta, among others, for Punjab, while senior counsel RS Bains, along with advocates Imaan S Khara and Anmol Singh assisted the Bench on the petitioner’s behalf. Additional Solicitor General of India Satya Pal Jain and counsel Dheeraj Jain represented the Centre