The first detention order against Amrit Pal was passed in March 2023 after he allegedly made provocative remarks. (Image source: AFP)
In filing his plea, Singh claimed that his life and liberty were completely deprived of him in an “unusual and cruel manner” and that he was held under the Preventive Detention Act for more than a year and detained 2,600 kilometers away from Punjab. The place.
Newly elected MP Amritpal Singh, who was detained under the National Security Act (NSA), moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court after challenging the proceedings and his preventive detention .
Amritpal has been lodged in Dibrugarh jail since his arrest in April 2023. However, he won the 2024 Lok Sabha elections from Sri Khadoor Sahib parliamentary constituency in Punjab as an independent candidate. Singh is the leader of the so-called “pro-Khalistan” group Waris Punjab De and an accused in the Ajnala police station attack.
The first detention order against Amrit Pal was passed in March 2023 after he allegedly made provocative remarks.
according to a living method In the report, Amrit Pal, while filing his plea, claimed that his life and liberty were completely deprived of him in an “unusual and cruel manner” and that he was detained under the Preventive Detention Act for more than a year. 2,600 kilometers away from Punjab.
He further said that he took oath under the Constitution and was given “the right to represent the best interests of his constituency and the state of Punjab”.
The plea also mentioned that Amrit Pal was detained mainly because of social media posts uploaded by different people around the world, which had almost no real impact on the state of Punjab. It added that “India's national security may not be so fragile as to be affected by social media posts.”
The complaint also pointed out that the Amritsar magistrate cannot issue any order related to “Security of India” under Section 3(3) of the NSA. Only the central government or the state government can issue orders under Section 3(1) of the NSA. ) issued the same command.
The petition further stated that there was no material before the magistrate to draw a subjective conclusion that the conduct of the petitioner was in any manner prejudicial to the defense of India, India's relations with foreign powers and the security of India.
