Chandigarh, September 12
The sword of custodial interrogation continues to hang over the head of Capt Amarinder Singh.
As the former chief minister’s petition challenging Vidhan Sabha’s resolution to expel him for the remaining term, and subsequent developments, came up for hearing before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, his counsel tried to shield him from custodial interrogation by insisting that the House had overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing punitive directions.
But after hearing arguments that lasted for over four hours, the Bench reserved the orders on the petition. Before rising for the day, the Bench of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Ajay Tewari said the orders would be pronounced in the next two or three days.
It means the former chief minister, for the time being, continues to be without protection against custodial interrogation; and the Election Commission can go ahead with the process of getting fresh election notified.
The case was initially taken up in a jam-packed courtroom for hearing at noon. As the counsel made a case out of issues like lack of jurisdiction and violation of principle of natural
justice, the arguments spilled over to the post-lunch session.
Seeking the grant of interim relief, counsel said he was “worried” about custodial interrogation and the finding of guilt recorded by the Vidhan Sabha’s special committee.
“The legislature”, he argued, “cannot decide if custodial interrogation is required. Under the separation of powers, such a decision vests with the police”.
Praying for the “suspension of the findings”, the counsel said directions should be issued to the police against relying on the finding of guilt. In fact, the police should not be allowed to use the findings as the basis of further action.
Such findings, coming from the august House, would be taken with extreme deference and result in denial of fair opportunity to the petitioner before the regular court.
The counsel also wanted the Bench to suspend the decision of holding fresh election for filling up the seat, rendered vacant due to the petitioner’s expulsion.
The former chief minister, he argued, would suffer an irreparable loss, if someone was to get elected to the seat.
Referring to the violation of principle of natural justice, the counsel said the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing, but it was an exercise in futility as he was denied free access to the record.
Though he was allowed the inspection of record running into over 4,000 pages, permission to take down the notes was denied.
He asserted the House could not have gone into the matter as it was sub-judice. As many as six petitions, challenging the exemption granted to a builder, were pending before the high court. Still, the finding of guilt was recorded on the basis of this issue.
The counsel also insisted there was a threshold bar on looking into acts that had taken place during the previous House. Moreover, the decisions were executive in character as these were taken by Amarinder Singh in his capacity of chief minister. As such, the legislature could not look into these.
The Bench, while hearing the arguments, observed they were prima facie of the opinion that expulsion from the House would not disqualify him from contesting the polls and getting elected again.
The judges also wanted to know what was extend to which a House could go, and whether principles of natural justice could be considered violated even after the opportunity of hearing had been granted.
Referring to the cash-for-vote incident, the judges asked the counsel to explain whether the next House could constitute a committee to look into the matter if elections were to be held before receiving a report in the matter.
