The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a one-week ultimatum to the Punjab government to clarify whether any criminal cases have been registered against Rajya Sabha MP Sandeep Pathak.
In a hearing on Friday, a Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu extended Pathak’s interim protection from arrest, reinforcing a previous order that bars authorities from taking “coercive steps” against the lawmaker without the court’s explicit permission.
The case centers on a petition filed by Pathak, who moved the High Court seeking a directive for the Punjab government and state police to disclose the particulars of “two or more FIRs” he believes have been filed against him. Pathak’s legal team argued that their client is currently in the dark regarding his own legal standing, despite widespread media reports suggesting the existence of criminal proceedings.
Senior Advocate R.S. Rai, appearing for Pathak alongside advocates Arjun Sheoran and Pranhita Singh, accused the state government of “playing hide and seek.” Rai asserted that despite repeated opportunities and earlier court directions, the state has consistently failed to disclose whether any criminal cases actually exist.
Representing the State of Punjab, Additional Advocate General Chanchal K. Singla questioned the maintainability of the petition, characterizing it as being based on mere speculation. Singla argued that disclosing such information at this stage could “open a floodgate” of similar requests.
Furthermore, the state counsel maintained that he was still “unaware” of any FIRs registered against the MP and had not yet received specific instructions to confirm or deny their existence.
During the proceedings, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu questioned why the petitioner had not sought anticipatory bail as a primary step. “You apprehend arrest and to know what kind of FIR has been filed, you file an anticipatory bail and then you get to know about it,” the Chief Justice observed.
In response, Rai cited the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the Youth Bar Association case, emphasizing that once an FIR is registered, “a citizen has the right to know.” He maintained that judicial intervention was necessary to protect Pathak’s rights and allow him to seek appropriate legal remedies.
The Bench noted the state’s continued request for more time, observing that the government “yet again seeks time to answer the query of this court.” While the state’s challenge regarding the maintainability of the petition remains on the table, the court clarified that this issue will only be addressed after the state provides a definitive answer regarding the existence of any cognizable offenses.
The interim protection granted to Pathak remains in effect until the next hearing, scheduled for next week. Until then, the state police are prohibited from taking any action against the MP without prior judicial clearance.
