Author Hardeep Singh

CHANDIGARH Central and Punjab governments have submitted its reply to Punjab and Haryana High Court in response to the petition filed by pro-freedom Sikh leader and Khadoor Sahib MP Amritpal Singh and tried to justify extension of his detention under the National Security Act (NSA), but failed. 

Under the NSA, Amritpal Singh and his nine aides are lodged in Dibrugarh jail of Assam. A day before recently held parliamentary elections, the governments extended the detention by one more year. Human Rights bodies termed it violation of the human rights of a people’s representative. 

The petition filed by a pro-freedom Sikh leader challenged this detention. Defending its move, Centre and Punjab governments have claimed that Amritpal Singh remained in contact with the “separatists” from jail, as per media reports. However, they failed to prove illegitimacy in contacting the “separatists”.   

Sikhs are demanding a separate nation peacefully and democratically. They are not violating law and order. So what is wrong with contacting the separatist. Being separatist is not a crime, said the Sikh leaders. 

In the petition filed by his counsels, Amar Jeet Mohan Singh Chouhan and Aarushi Garg, Amritpal Singh argues that his detention under the NSA is illegal and should be nullified. The petition claims his right to life and liberty has been severely violated, describing his detention as “unusual and cruel” due to the prolonged use of the preventive detention Act and his placement far from Punjab—approximately 2,600 kilometers away, requiring almost four days of travel by train or car.

He  contends that his detention is solely punitive for his vocal criticism of the state and central governments, a right he asserts is democratic. The petition also points out that the detention grounds are based on social media posts by various individuals worldwide, which, according to Singh, do not significantly impact Punjab or India’s security.

The plea argues that the grounds for detention are irrelevant and extraneous to the purpose of preventive detention. It highlights that the petitioner is being detained based on social media activity by others, against whom no action is taken. If any of the provided grounds are deemed irrelevant, the detention order can be contested as the detaining authority’s satisfaction would be undermined.

Additionally, Amritpal Singh argues that the Amritsar District Magistrate lacks the authority to issue orders under the NSA concerning India’s security, a power reserved for the central or state governments.