Chandigarh, September 3
The Union of India, in a petition likely to be moved on Monday, is going on record to state that senior advocate Harbhagwan Singh was never engaged for the Sehajdhari voting rights case. The application to be submitted for recalling the order of disposing the case, made by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on the basis of Harbhagwan Singh’s statement, is expected to be moved by the Assistant Solicitor General of India Anmol Rattan Singh Sidhu with the request that it be taken up on Monday itself.

The development assumes significance as Harbhagwan Singh had maintained categorically that he was appointed in the case a day before the hearing and had even received a fax message confirming his appointment. Harbhagwan Singh had, however, not produced the fax message, saying the issue of his appointment was not in dispute.

The Union Ministry of Home Affairs too on Friday had come out with a statement on his appointment, but had not stated definitely whether Harbhagwan Singh was engaged for this particular case. It simply stated that he was engaged for “two of the three cases”.

The Ministry, in the statement released through the Press Information Bureau, had quoted Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram as saying: “On a suggestion that a suitable senior counsel may be engaged to appear in the matter, Ministry of Law and Justice had written a letter approving the engagement of Harbhagwan Singh in two of the three cases before the High Court...”

The application says the Union of India is “seeking kind indulgence of the court that counsel Harbhagwan Singh has never been engaged and given brief for the said case. Till this fact is in abeyance that on what basis he made such statements, kindly recall the matter and decide it on merits”.

Harbhagwan Singh had claimed that the notification debarring Sehajdhari Sikh from exercising their voting rights had been withdrawn by the Union Government. A Full Bench of the High Court had then disposed of the case as infructuous. The very next day the Union of India had clarified that the notification had not been withdrawn and that it had no intention of doing so.