‘National interest over personal liberty’: HC rejects Amritpal’s plea to attend Parliament session

At the outset, the bench clarified that most of the grounds raised in the petition challenged the original preventive detention order dated April 17, 2025, or earlier detention orders, which were not the subject matter of the present writ petition. It therefore refrained from examining those grounds and confined itself to three grounds: that petitioner has been deprived of raising voice in the Parliament where he is entitled to raise issues pertaining to his parliamentary constituency; that he cited Article 101 of the Constitution which mandates that absence of any MP from the Parliament session for 60 days or more entails the seat to be declared vacant; and that February 2, 2026 order is a “non-speaking order which relies upon the comments” of the District Magistrate, Amritsar, and Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar (Rural), and “mechanically relies upon the same for rejecting the prayer for temporary release besides assigning the reason of threat to security of the State and maintenance of public order.”

Appearing for the Punjab government, senior advocate Anupam Gupta submitted that the word “may” used repeatedly in Section 15 of the NSA reflected the wide discretionary power vested in the competent authority. He argued that Section 15 did not contain a non-obstante clause, that no higher right of temporary release was available to an elected MP than to an ordinary citizen, and that Article 105(1) of the Constitution did not confer any additional fundamental right of liberty on a preventively detained MP. He further contended that the freedom of speech granted under Article 105(1) did not entitle a detained MP to claim a higher right of liberty than an ordinary citizen.

The bench reproduced Section 15 of the NSA in full and observed that the appropriate government “may, at any time, direct that any person detained in pursuance of a detention order may be released for any specified period either without conditions or upon such conditions… and may, at any time, cancel his release”.

In its reasoning, the bench held that there was “no constitutional or legal infirmity” in the Punjab government’s order. The order relied on the reports of Amritsar DM and Amritsar (Rural) SSP, dated January 22 and January 21, 2026, respectively, which had been considered by the competent authority.

“The threat perception to public order and security of the State continues to exist, which is evident from the detailed reports of the DM and the SSP,” read the judgment.

Quoting from its observations, the court said: “Whenever the right to liberty of a person, who is under a preventive detention order, is pitched against public order and maintenance of security of the State, the first and foremost consideration is whether the grant of liberty would prejudice public order and security of the State. Even an iota of doubt in the mind of the competent authority about a possible breach would render individual liberty subservient. Sovereignty, integrity and security of the State and nation are always paramount. An individual’s right to speech or liberty is subservient to the larger concept of public order and security of the State/Nation.”

On the petitioner’s reliance on Articles 105 and 101, the bench ruled that there was no legally enforceable right under Article 105 for a sitting MP to participate in parliamentary proceedings during the period of preventive detention. It added that the petitioner was at liberty to seek exemption from attending Parliament, which would be considered in accordance with law.

The bench further observed that the reasons assigned in the impugned order — including the gravity and enormity of the grounds of detention, the petitioner’s continued preventive detention since April 23, 2025, and concerns relating to public order and State security — were valid and supported by official reports.

Concluding the 11-page judgment, the bench held: “this Court is of the considered view that no illegality or impropriety can be found in the impugned order dated 02.02.2026, which accordingly stands upheld and the present petition stands dismissed without costs.”

The petition was argued by senior advocate R.S. Bains along with advocates Imaan S. Khara and Anmol Singh for Amritpal Singh.