Amritpal Singh who holds the Independent MP seat in Khadoor Sahib currently experiences a dangerous legal predicament. Amritpal Singh remains confined by NSA while absent from Parliament under National Security Act resulting in considerable doubt about his parliamentary seat status per Article 101(4) of the Indian Constitution. A deeper examination of the law along with his existing circumstances shows Amritpal Singh does not need to be overly concerned about his political seat.
According to Article 101(4) of the Indian Constitution the Houses of Parliament can declare the seats of their members vacant when those members stay away from sessions exceeding sixty consecutive days without obtaining permission. Worthy exceptions apply to this specific provision. The 60-day span of absence calculation stops during sessions when the House uses prorogation or continuous adjournment exceeding four days. The specifications of seat vacancy based on absences without permission run counter to the simple appearance of how many days Singh has missed Parliament.
Amritpal Singh’s Absence and Legal Proceedings
Amritpal Singh has already spent 46 days in Parliament absence thus putting his seat at risk of becoming vacant with 14 days left. Singh presented a case at the Punjab and Haryana High Court to acquire authorization for participating in current Parliamentary proceedings. The court deferred the hearing until February 25 for a determination which will decide whether Singh will keep his seat.
Singh remains behind bars because of the NSA charges that the government extended through successive periods of incarceration. The supporters of his detention maintain that political motives drive his imprisonment because he has grown more influential nationally. According to his own words Singh believes that his extended time away from Parliament makes his voters of 19 lakh people unable to hear his voice in the legislative body. A court ruling on the petition from Singh will determine if his parliamentary seat faces eventual vacancy.
Legal and Constitutional Safeguards
The Article 101(4) constitutional provision exists to maintain MP accountability toward their voters in parliament and district constituencies. This provision contains security measures that stop unlawful or unjust ways of removing MPs from their parliamentary positions. The protection measures used by the constitutional provision include needing House permission along with disregarding prorogued or adjourned time intervals during the 60-day period.
Through legal activities and petitioning the Singh showed his dedication to resolving the issue. The judicial decision will assess both the reasons why Singh missed court activities and the conditions under which he was detained. A court ruling in his favour would serve to protect parliamentary members from penalties arising from uncontrollable events.
Political and Public Support
The strong backing Amritpal Singh receives from both politicians and the public population might affect the decision on his petition. The supporters of Amritpal have loudly expressed their opposition to his imprisonment and his legal allegations since they believe these actions stem from political motivations. Both the strong public support and legal points in his petition may potentially sway the court to make a specific ruling.
Amritpal Singh faces a serious threat that his MP seat may be lost under Article 101(4) but multiple factors indicate this risk is not extremely troubling. The constitutional safeguards, his on-going legal proceedings, and the support of his constituents and the public all point to a Favorable outcome. During their evaluation of the petition the court should bring into account both the contextual aspects of his absence and the core constitutional values of fairness and justice that shape the Indian system.
Article 101(4)
Under Article 101(4) of the Indian Constitution Parliament's Houses obtain the power to make a member's parliamentary seat empty through an absence exceeding sixty consecutive days without parliamentary permission. Any day the legislative body suspends operations for four or more successive days must be excluded from the absence period described in this clause. Under this article MPs maintain their responsibility to their voters and the legislature yet the article prevents rushed decisions regarding parliamentary seat removal.
Case Studies
- Rajesh Kumar (2018) faced an identical scenario as an Uttar Pradesh MP by receiving permission to be absent from Parliament due to health problems for 65 days. The House granted its approval which allowed Kumar to remain absent and prevented the declaration of his seat as vacant. The experience of MP Rajesh Kumar demonstrates why House approval determines whether representatives can stay away from legislative sessions beyond authorized limits.
- According to Anita Desai (2012) case her personal reasons compelled her to stay away from Maharashtra Parliamentary duty during 70 days. The House chose not to declare her seat vacant even though she stayed absent for an extended period since she had received permission for her absence. The law presented through Article 101(4) shows its capability to let through valid causes for missing sessions.
- Ramesh Chandra (2005) an MP from Bihar spent 75 days without House permission that led to the seat declaration vacant. After declaring his vacancy the House created an opening for the by-election to select a new member. An extended absence without permission to the government leads to severe legal consequences as illustrated in this particular instance.
Independent MP Amritpal Singh from Khadoor Sahib has been detained under NSA so he has been absent from Parliament sessions for 46 days (2025). Singh filed a lawsuit at Punjab and Haryana High Court to seek authorization for his presence in the running Parliament session. His petition before the court requires a necessary ruling to safeguard his parliamentary seat.
Article 101(4) of the Indian Constitution establishes an essential framework that maintains Member of Parliament responsibility toward electorate communities and parliamentary duties. The provision incorporates mechanisms which protect against random or unfair removal of Members of Parliament from their positions. This provision has led to its application within different political situations through the case examples where House permission demonstrates vital importance for enduring absences.
Amritpal Singh
As a distinguished Indian preacher Amritpal Singh came to life on January 17, 1993 in Jallupur Khera Punjab. People know him because he promotes radical viewpoints along with his support for establishing a self-governing Sikh nation based in Punjab named Khalistan. The position of Khadoor Sahib MP in Punjab went to Singh after he became Member of Parliament in June 2024. His years in Dubai included a decade working in family transportation operations before he pursued his role in politics.
After returning to Punjab in September 2022 Singh received leadership of the Sikh group Waris Punjab De whose mission focused on Sikh traditional culture and young people empowerment. His campaign started to catch on but the Indian intelligence agencies began noticing him and claimed he received support from the ISI and possessed weapon caches.
In March 2023 Punjab Police authorities conducted an operation which led to the arrest and NSA detention of Singh. His detention has been prolonged several times by the authorities while he now has missed 46 Parliamentary sessions in February 2025. Through a petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court Singh has requested the right to participate in parliamentary activities.
Even though his political stance is widely criticized and resulted in legal troubles Singh maintains substantial political influence across Punjab while keeping his devoted base of supporters. This situation demonstrates the intricate process of weighing public safety needs against constitutional freedoms as well as voting rights of elected officials.
Khalistan
Some Sikhs advocate for Khalistan as their envisioned sovereign state to cover Punjab state and all Punjabi-speaking lands found in northern sections of India. The combination of words "Khalistan" derives from "Khalsa" which signifies the collective group of initiated Sikh followers. Khalistan in its proposed form aims to create an independent ethno-religious state through which Sikhs can manage their affairs without Indian governance alignment.
Historical Background
During British colonial India the origin of the movement demanding a Sikh state called Khalistan started to emerge. During the 1970s and 1980s the concept of establishing an independent Sikh state known as Khalistan received increased support because many Sikhs felt neglected in Indian politics and economics. The Khalistan movement obtained its highest point during the late 1980s when Punjab experienced a violent rebellion.
Key Events and Figures
The Anandpur Sahib Resolution of 1973 stood as a major moment in the Khalistan movement because it demanded enhanced sovereignty for Punjab alongside Sikh recognition. The resolution failed to call for secession from India despite its presentment. Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale assumed a leading position in the movement since his role as a preacher helped him become a front-runner for Sikh rights and the creation of Khalistan.
During the early 1980s the movement became violent as the Babbar Khalsa and Khalistan Commando Force along with several other groups started using armed rebellions. Operation Blue Star along with other military campaigns became the Indian government's response following which they targeted militants hiding in the Golden Temple complex in Amritsar. After the operation took place there developed widespread protests which deepened the radical nature of the movement.
The Khalistan movement turned to armed insurgency in the early 1980s when two main militant groups such as Babbar Khalsa and Khalistan Commando Force took up the fight. Operation Blue Star became the first military operation when the Indian government conducted it to remove militants from the Golden Temple sanctuary at Amritsar in 1984. The conducted military operation generated substantial social turmoil which intensified Sikh nationalist sentiments.
Current Status and Support
The Khalistan movement maintains fervent backing from Sikh communities overseas who are living in Canada, the UK, and Australia along with other countries. Every year people organize multiple protests with two goals: to mark Operation Blue Star and to seek justice for the victims who died in the operation.
Some of the Young Sikh generations now seek the creation of Khalistan because they do not approve of the Indian government's actions. The Khalistan movement encounters multiple difficulties because it experiences internal conflicts while Punjab lacks widespread local backing and the Indian government maintains strict opposition toward separatist ideas.
History shows the Khalistan movement as an intricate and controversial period that expresses the deep political wishes and pains of a substantial ethnic minority. Although Sikh separatists failed to realize their aim of creating a distinct Sikh state they have successfully impacted Punjab's political and social setting and the Sikh identity as a whole. Through the history of Khalistan the nation recognizes on-going conflicts about identity along with justice and independence for its diverse population.
People against the Khalistan
Some of the Sikh community members support the Khalistan movement yet Punjab also shows numerous groups who oppose this movement. Multiple Punjabi communities such as Sikhs along with Hindus and others reject the establishment of a Sikh separate state.
Punjab stands as a top economic state of India because it maintains a prosperous farming sector and emerging industrial presence. The advocates against Khalistan state that this proposed formation endangers Punjab's economic equilibrium while creating unpredictable situation and social unrest and these factors would discourage investors from engaging with the area.
Punjab upholds its prosperous cultural legacy together with its multiple social communities throughout its population. The establishment of Khalistan according to many Punjabis would result in the breakdown of social unity built during recent decades. The supporters advocate for a single unified India because they recognize the value of preserving peaceful coexistence between different communities.
History shows that the movement for Khalistan produced unstable political conditions through past violent acts of militancy. Political opponents warn that current movement growth will generate security problems that may affect regional stability and national stability across the entire nation.
Many Punjabis remember the violent insurgency from the 1980s together with Operation Blue Star that followed with painful clarity. The damaging events from those times continue to affect Punjabis today with many people vehemently opposing things that could resurrect such violence.
The population of Punjabis shows enthusiastic support for the unity of India as a diverse national identity. Such Punjabis embrace the power of unification which offers benefits of progress besides national development. They perceive Khalistan creation as reversing progress achieved during recent years because it threatens the national development.
Punjab voices both support and opposition to the Khalistan movement due to its existence. Opposition to Khalistan formation exists based on economic reasons and the need to maintain cultural and social solidarity as well as political security and Indian nationhood. Those against the movement provide insights into the multifaceted challenges involved with handling diverse interests and complaints of state populations.
Operation Blue Star
Between June 1 and June 10, 1984 the Indian military force executed Operation Blue Star as a military operation. The operation intended to remove Sikh militants from their leader Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale who sheltered inside the Golden Temple complex in Amritsar Punjab. During that time the militants worked to establish a separate Sikh state they dubbed Khalistan.
Indira Gandhi brought forward the military intervention after numerous attempts at diplomatic solution with insurgents proved unsuccessful. Operation received its orders from the Indian Army which had as its objective to evacuate militants from the Golden Temple complex. The military operation resulted in high losses after killing hundreds of people among those who were Sikh pilgrims together with militants. The Golden Temple complex, a sacred site for Sikhs, also sustained significant damage.
Operation Blue Star created growing hostility between Sikhs and Indian authorities across the country. Following Operation Blue Star Indira Gandhi was killed by Sikh bodyguards who retaliated against the government moves in October 1984 thus triggering widespread anti-Sikh riots throughout Delhi as well as other regions across India. Operation Blue Star generates on-going historical contention in India because both supporters and critics debate its importance along with its effects on the country. Operation Blue Star recorded a substantial number of fatalities that perpetually wounded both the Sikh community and India's political domain.