Punjab And Haryana High Court Rejects Jailed MP Amritpal’s Plea To Attend Parliament Session

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday dismissed the petition by jailed MP Amritpal Singh seeking temporary release to attend the ongoing budget session of the Parliament while under preventive detention.

Amritpal, a pro-Khalistan Sikh radical leader, who is an MP from Punjab’s Khadoor Sahib constituency, has been lodged in Assam’s Dibrugarh jail under the national security Act (NSA) since April 2023. He was booked for leading a large number of his supporters to Amritsar’s Ajnala police station on February 23, 2023, vandalising it and injuring several police personnel for the release of one of his supporters. He fled the spot on March 18 after being booked under NSA and several other charges. He was nabbed by Punjab police from Moga on April 23, 2023. He fought and won the 2024 Lok Sabha election while in jail, with a massive margin.

He was granted parole only once after he won the 2024 Lok Sabha polls – on July 5, 2024, to take oath of office.

In his petition placed before the Bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Sanjiv Berry, he said that he had addressed representations to the Union of India and Lok Sabha Speaker also for parole to allow him to attend the budget session.

He had approached the high court on February 11 last after the Punjab government rejected his parole request on February 2, last, seeking to quash the rejection and demanded temporary release or state arrangements for his attendance in the Parliament.

Also Watch:

Earlier, a similar plea by Amritpal was also denied by the high court in February, 2025, as the session concluded before the court could decide the matter.

Alleging his detention was ``politically motivated’’, Amritpal held that it was designed to silence an MP representing 19 lakh voters.

However, the Punjab government opposed Amritpal’s plea stating that the speech by Amritpal could trigger law and order issues in the state. The state government also argued that parole was neither a constitutional nor fundamental right.