Supreme Court rejects MP Amritpal Singh’s plea challenging detention under NSA

The petetioner had argued that restraining an elected Member of Parliament from performing his constitutional duties constituted a violation of his fundamental rights as well as the collective rights of his electorate.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today refused to entertain the plea of jailed Khalistani separatist Amritpal Singh challenging his 2023 detention under the National Security Act.

Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves mentioned Singh's petition before a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Arvind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria. At the outset, Justice Kumar advised him to approach the High Court first.

Seven associates of radical preacher Amritpal rearrested by Punjab Police

Golsalves Argued

Gonsalves argued that Singh has been in custody for the past two and a half years and that his detention is based solely on a single FIR, in which a chargesheet has already been filed. He also noted that the court recently admitted a petition filed by Dr Gitenjali Angmo, wife of Ladakhi social activist Sonam Wangchuk, challenging her husband's arrest under the NSA. Justice Kumar noted that Wangchuk's case was different because he had been transferred from one state to another.

What Court Stated?

The court initially stated that it would hear the petition in January or February 2026, but upon the petitioner's citing delays, Justice Kumar stated that the court would request the Punjab and Haryana High Court to dispose of the matter within six weeks. When the hearing began, no lawyer was present for the central government.

Later, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared in court. The court informed him that it would not hear Singh's petition, but that he was permitted to file a writ petition in the High Court.

Delhi Court grants 8-day custody of Amritpal, Amrik Singh associated with Khalistani outfit KTF

Justice Kumar Statement

Justice Kumar said, "We are not hearing this case here, but are allowing the petitioner to approach the High Court and request the High Court to decide it within six weeks... We heard Wangchuk's case because it came before the Advisory Board; otherwise, we do not normally hear such cases."

ASG Raju stated that six weeks was too short a time as the process of filing a reply and rejoinder would take time. Gonsalves requested that the court grant only one month. Justice Kumar orally remarked, "We are putting a lot of pressure on the High Court judges."