Parliamentary Duty Amidst Detention: High Court Mandates Decision on MP’s Parole Plea

In a significant legal development involving the rights of a sitting parliamentarian under preventive detention, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has issued a directive to the State of Punjab to resolve a pending representation regarding temporary release. The case, Amritpal Singh vs. Union of India and Others , centers on the petitioner’s request to attend the upcoming Winter Session of Parliament.

The Backdrop: Lawmaking from Incarceration

Amritpal Singh, the sitting Member of Parliament for the Khadoor Sahib constituency, is currently incarcerated at Central Jail, Dibrugarh, Assam, under an order of preventive detention. With the Winter Session of Parliament scheduled to commence on December 1, 2025, the petitioner filed a writ of mandamus seeking parole to fulfill his legislative duties.

The petitioner had previously approached authorities, including the Home Secretary, on November 13, 2025, to facilitate his presence in the House. However, as the session date approached without a resolution, the matter was brought before the High Court bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry.

Legal Friction: Who Decides?

A primary hurdle in the proceedings was determining the "competent authority" to grant parole under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980. The Lok Sabha Secretariat had communicated that the petitioner must approach the "Competent Court."

The respondents identified the State Government as the proper authority, a position clarified by the provisions of the NSA. The legal question focused on whether the state, as the entity that initiated the detention order through the District Magistrate of Amritsar, possessed the statutory power to grant temporary release under Section 15 of the Act.

The Court’s Reasoning

The Bench underscored that the definition of "appropriate Government" under Section 2(1)(a) of the NSA is dispositive in such cases. The Court established that because the detention order was issued by an officer subordinate to the State government—the District Magistrate of Amritsar—the authority to grant or deny temporary release or parole vests squarely with the State government.

By failing to address the petitioner’s timely representation, the administration necessitated judicial intervention to ensure that the request was processed in accordance with equity and fair play.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies the administrative responsibility within the framework of detention laws:

• On the authority to grant release: "The power to grant temporary release u/s 15 of the National Security Act, 1980 lies with the ‘appropriate Government’..."
• On identifying the authority: "Since the order of preventive detention was passed on 17.04.2025 by the District Magistrate, Amritsar... the State Government is the competent authority as per Section 2(1)(a) of the National Security Act, 1980..."

A Time-Bound Directive

The High Court has directed the Home Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs and Justice to decide upon the petitioner’s application (dated 13.11.2025) within one week. The Court emphasized that this decision should ideally be reached before the commencement of the Winter Session on December 1, 2025.

This ruling underscores the balance between the state's power to enforce preventive detention and the duty of constitutional authorities to ensure that a detained legislator’s rights to perform parliamentary functions are addressed through the proper legal channels, rather than remaining in administrative limbo.