Listen To This Post

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday was informed by the Punjab Government that no coercive action would be taken against Sandeep Pathak without prior permission of the court until Monday, when the matter is scheduled to come up again before a Bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu.

The assurance came during a hearing in which the High Court repeatedly questioned the State over whether any FIR had actually been registered against the Rajya Sabha member. The Bench also expressed surprise that the government was unable to clearly state the position despite the matter being under judicial consideration.

Court questions State over FIR status

Appearing for Pathak, senior advocate Randeep Rai argued that media reports indicated that two FIRs had been registered against the MP after he allegedly changed his political affiliation.

Rai told the court that despite approaching the Director General of Police, the petitioner had not been informed whether any FIR existed, where it had been registered, or what offences had been invoked.

Questioning the State’s position, the Bench observed that it was difficult to comprehend how the government could remain unaware of whether criminal cases had been lodged against a public representative.

“That’s a little difficult to understand,” the court remarked during the hearing.

State terms the petition ‘speculative’

Opposing the petition, Additional Advocate-General Chanchal K Singla argued that the plea was speculative in nature and based solely on newspaper reports.

He submitted that the petition was not maintainable and amounted to a blanket request for anticipatory bail, without specifying any FIR number, offence, or police station.

Singla further contended that the State would need to gather information from all districts before confirming whether any case had been registered.

“Naturally, we will enquire. We will seek information from all the districts, because he has disclosed nothing,” the State counsel submitted before the court.

‘Why is the State playing hide-and-seek?’

Countering the State’s stand, Randeep Rai accused the Punjab Government of deliberately withholding information regarding the alleged FIRs.

“Why should the State want to play hide-and-seek and not tell me if there is an FIR,” Rai argued, adding that the authorities appeared keen on retaining the “element of surprise” by not disclosing details of the alleged cases.

At one stage, the Bench suggested that the petitioner could approach the court seeking anticipatory bail, following which the State would be compelled to disclose the details. Rai, however, maintained that the immediate issue was transparency regarding the alleged FIRs themselves.

Interim protection till next hearing

When the matter turned to interim relief, the State initially opposed any restraint order. However, during the course of arguments, Punjab eventually assured the court that no coercive steps — including arrest — would be taken against Pathak without prior intimation until the next date of hearing.

Following the assurance, the Bench adjourned the matter to Monday for further proceedings.

What Pathak sought in his petition

In his plea before the High Court, Sandeep Pathak sought directions to the Punjab Government and police authorities to disclose details of “two or any other FIRs” allegedly registered against him. He also requested the court to restrain the police from taking coercive action until he could avail himself of appropriate legal remedies.

The petition further sought certified copies of any FIRs allegedly lodged by the Punjab Police against the sitting Rajya Sabha MP.

According to the petition, Pathak is a sitting Rajya Sabha member elected in 2022 with an “established academic and professional background” and is a “law-abiding citizen.” The plea stated that he had recently exercised his constitutional right to change political affiliation and merge with another political party, following which reports emerged about the alleged registration of FIRs against him.

The petition also alleged that despite “diligent efforts”, no information regarding FIR numbers, police stations, dates, invoked offences, or allegations had been supplied to the petitioner.