New Delhi: Emphasising that national security and public order take precedence over the personal and political rights of an elected representative, the Punjab and Haryana High Court Friday dismissed a petition by Amritpal Singh, the sitting Lok Sabha MP from Khadoor Sahib.
Amritpal, who is being held in Assam’s Dibrugarh central jail under Punjab government’s Department of Home Affairs’ preventive detention order, had sought temporary release to attend the ongoing Budget Session of Parliament, a request the court ultimately found secondary to the state’s security concerns.
The second phase of Parliament’s budget session for this year started on 9 March 9 and is expected to conclude on 2 April.
The 33-year-old self-styled preacher and open supporter of Khalistan, Amritpal had approached the high court to quash an order dated 2 February, 2026, issued by the Department of Home Affairs, Government of Punjab, which had rejected his application for temporary release under Section 15 of the National Security Act (NSA), 1980.
A bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry Friday in an 11-page judgment said: “Whenever the right to liberty of a person… is pitched against public order & maintenance of security of the State… the liberty of an individual is rendered subservient and inconsequential.”
The judges further emphasised that the “sovereignty, integrity and security of the state and nation are always paramount”.
Amritpal, represented by senior advocates R.S. Bains and advocates Imaan S. Khara and Anmol Singh, argued that his presence in the Budget Session (scheduled in two phases from late January to April 2026) was important to raise issues affecting his constituency, including the devastating aftermath of the August 2025 floods and rampant drug abuse in Punjab.
Thus, petitioning the court for a temporary release.
Furthermore, he raised concerns regarding Article 101 of the Constitution, which stipulates that an MP’s seat may be declared vacant if they are absent for 60 days or more without permission. Contending this continued detention was “politically motivated”, Amritpal claimed it was an attempt to silence the voice of his electorate.
In response, the Punjab government argued that Section 15 of the NSA provides wide discretionary power to the government and is not mandatory. The state maintained that “no higher right of temporary release is available to an elected Member of Parliament in detention, than that available to an ordinary citizen”.
The state government further asserted that the fundamental right of freedom of speech under Article 105(1) does not grant a detained MP any special liberty beyond what is established by law under Article 21. They cited reports from the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, which objected to the release due to a “serious threat/prejudice to the security of State and maintenance of public order”.
Also Read: Friends-turned-critics & two lawyers: The ‘hit list’ that’s keeping Amritpal in jail
‘Satisfaction of material available on record’
The division bench upheld the government’s decision, noting that they found no “constitutional or legal infirmity” in the rejection of Amritpal’s release. The court clarified that while the Constitution is federal, it bestows dominant rights upon the Union regarding preventive detention, highlighting the subject’s gravity.
Citing precedents including that of Indira Gandhi in 1975, the court noted that “no higher or special right is available to a preventively detained sitting Member of Parliament, than an ordinary citizen. Therefore, a sitting Member of Parliament as well as a common man would be subjected to the same privileges and obligations as contained in Section 15 of NSA”.
Addressing the petitioner’s fear of losing his parliamentary seat due to absence, the court noted that Singh is “at liberty to make a prayer for exemption from the proceedings of the Parliament in session,” which would be considered on its own merits.
The court concluded that it could not go into the veracity of the material that formed the basis of the state’s apprehension.
Instead, it held that the Punjab government’s decision was based on the “subjective satisfaction of material available on record” regarding the potential breach of public order.
Consequently, the petition was dismissed without costs, affirming that the “national interests are paramount when compared with personal interests”.
“Our Constitution is though federal in nature, but certain provisions therein indicate that it gives more power to the Union of India rather than the States…..Even the subject matters under which the Parliament and the State Assemblies can legislate under Seventh Schedule of the Constitution vests authority with the Parliament to legislate on all important issues under the Union List, leaving comparatively less important issues for the States to legislate under the State List,” the court said.
The matters concerning preventive detention, the court said, are “delineated” in the Union List of Seventh Schedule, “which is indicative of importance given to the subject matters of preventive detention”.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)