Chandigarh, September 15
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today brought under its preview Punjab Vidhan Sabha’s direction on subjecting Capt Amarinder Singh to custodial interrogation.

Taking up the former Chief Minister’s petition, the Division Bench of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Ajay Tewari not only stayed the Vidhan Sabha’s directions on custodial interrogation, but also ruled the same were, prima facie, not binding.

The Bench did not stay Capt Amarinder Singh’s expulsion from the House, but admitted his petition against the same. Notice was also directed to be issued to the Vidhan Sabha through its secretary.

Reply in the matter can be filed till October 31 and rejoinder, if any, by November 15. Any other document can be placed before the court by November 30.

The Bench ruled: “We are, prima facie, of the view that the resolution of the assembly about the need for custodial interrogation cannot be treated to be binding.

“Accordingly, by way of interim order, we direct that there will be stay of the direction that it is essential to have custodial interrogation.”

The Bench, however, clarified that “this interim order does not prevent the investigating officer to conduct custodial interrogation in accordance with law, if considered otherwise necessary”.

In their detailed seven-page order, the Judges refused to stay Amarinder Singh’s expulsion from the House. “Subject to the matter being examined in greater detail, at this stage it is not possible to hold that the assembly had no material before it or that pendency of a writ petition about the validity of the action debarred the assembly from exercise of its power…

“Thus, we do not find any ground to stay the order of expulsion by way of ad-interim order... Stay of expulsion will amount to grant of final relief, without hearing the other side”.

The Bench ruled: “It is no longer res integra that legislature, as a sovereign institution, can expel its member in exercise of its inherent power to uphold its own dignity and discipline.

“In the present case, the resolution is preceded by an inquiry report by a committee, inter alia, recording a finding of the petitioner being involved in corruption.

“Though there is no threshold bar to challenge the said decision on the ground of violation of fundamental rights or any other illegality, the scope of judicial review is not the same as in case of ordinary administrative action.

n Relief for all P20