CHANDIGARH: Punjab is upset while lawyers fighting anti repression cases feel satisfied that a Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashing an FIR under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act has remained unchallenged by the Union Territory, Chandigarh.

Last year Lieutenant Colonel Pratap Singh (Retd), a human rights activist and a resident of Chandigarh, formed the “Khalsa Raj Party” whose avowed purpose was to achieve an independent sovereign Sikh state out of Indian Territory. The party’s manifesto said that the object would be achieved through peaceful and democratic means, a case was registered against him at Chandigarh under Sections 124A and 153A, IPC and Section 4 (IL) of the TADA and he was arrested.

The FIR lodged ‘against him was challenged under Section 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashed by Justice G.S.Grewal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Relying on various Supreme Court judgments, the judge, in a landmark judgment, held that an independent sovereign state could be demanded under Indian law and the Constitution if the declared means to achieve the object were peaceful and nonviolent.

The argument raised in the High Court was that if Parliament could cede some territory of the Union of India in favor of other states, why could not a citizen of the country persuade MPs either to cede of not to. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that citizen of India could demand or propagate the creation of an independent state from the Union of India so long as he neither incited violence nor erected a law and order problem and remained within the limitations prescribed by Article 19 of the Constitution, The judgment was delivered more than three months ago and inquiries reveal that the Administration of the Union Territory Chandigarh has not challenged it in the Supreme Court though the 90 days allowed for filing of an appeal are over.

The counsel, who represented the Administration in the High Court, said, when contacted on Tuesday, that his advice was not sought for filing an appeal and that he could not say whether the appeal was filed or not. The office of the Legal Remembrances of Chandigarh was more specific. It said the file of the case was sent after the judgment to the Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory, who wanted a decision to be Kept pending for two weeks. No further progress in the case was known, the office, however, said that a special leave petition (SLP) could be filed with reasons for delay even after 90 days of the judgment.

Punjab is upset at this apparent lack of interest in the case by the Administration because registration of TADA and sedition cases by the state police against alleged extremists or secessionist elements has been a common practice.

On the other hand, G.S.Grewala former Advocate General of Punjab, who represented Lt Cot Pratap Singh in the High Court, is of the view that the judgment quashing the FIR under the TADA is the first of its kind and is very much a law under Article 19 of the Construction.

Article extracted from this publication >>  April 16, 1993