Bikram Majithia granted 4 more weeks to amend plea in DA case, Punjab & Haryana HC adjourns matter again
Majithia, lodged in New Nabha Jail since July 6, was arrested by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau on June 25 from Amritsar for allegedly amassing assets disproportionate to his known income. Last week, a Mohali court extended his judicial custody till August 2.
The SAD leader first approached the high court on July 3, seeking relief against his 'illegal arrest and remand.' On that day, his lawyers sought a day's adjournment to place additional documents on record. When the case was taken up on July 4, they withdrew the plea and filed a fresh petition, which came up on July 8.
In the hearing on July 8, Majithia's counsel asked for three more weeks, saying that they needed time to bring on record the remand orders and additional material, leading the court to list the matter for July 29.
At Tuesday's hearing, Majithia's lawyers sought another four weeks to further amend and update the petition, which Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya allowed, fixing the next hearing for August 26.
In his petition, Majithia has alleged that he was picked up from his Amritsar home around 9 am on June 25 and kept in custody for over two hours before his formal arrest at 11.20 am, in breach of his constitutional and statutory rights. He contended that this amounts to illegal detention under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (formerly Section 167 CrPC).
The plea also challenges the June 26 remand order as 'manifestly perverse and non-speaking,' alleging that the magistrate ignored mandatory requirements such as examining the case diary and recording judicial satisfaction. Majithia's counsel further argued that the order disregarded a March 4, 2025, Supreme Court directive rejecting custodial interrogation and instead required him to cooperate with the Special Investigation Team (SIT) — directions he claim to have fully complied with.
Despite this, the state allegedly obtained a fresh remand by 'concealing facts and misrepresenting urgency' to extract a confession, violating Article 20(3) of the Constitution (right against self-incrimination), it was alleged. Terming his arrest and remand a 'gross violation' of Articles 14, 20, and 21, Majithia sought quashing of the remand order and safeguards against what he said was further abuse of process.
The petition was filed through advocates Sartej Singh Narula, Damanbir Singh Sobti, Arshdeep Singh Cheema, Arshdeep Singh Kler, and Sultan Singh Sangha.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
37 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
View: Why Special Intensive Revision is the need of the hour
In a democracy, the relationship between the state and its citizens is marked by direct engagement, with elections serving as the primary means through which this engagement is exercised. The authority of the state is not self-derived; it flows from the collective will of the people, expressed through the act of voting. As thinkers from Locke to Ambedkar have emphasised in different contexts, the legitimacy of the state rests on the consent and confidence of the governed. This makes it not only a right but also a duty of the state to ensure that only eligible citizens are given the opportunity to vote freely, fairly, and meaningfully. A failure to do so, whether through neglect or manipulation, amounts to a failure of the state's core democratic responsibility. A view of the Election Commission of India (ECI) office in New Delhi.(File Photo) The first step of upholding the election process is a pure electoral roll, which is not only an obligation but a non-negotiable necessity for the very existence of democracy. In keeping with this mandate, the Commission decided to undertake a special intensive revision of electoral rolls across the country, beginning with Bihar, guided by the core objective that "no eligible elector is left out and no ineligible elector is included in the electoral roll." To achieve this, the legal framework provides for two distinct methodologies: the summary revision, wherein the existing roll is published as a draft and updated with additions and deletions; and the intensive revision, which involves the preparation of the roll afresh from scratch. While the summary revision has been adopted in recent years primarily for the sake of administrative convenience, the Commission, taking note of the evolving demographic profile, increasing urbanisation, and growing patterns of migration, consciously chose the more rigorous path of special intensive revision. This decision reflects the Commission's commitment to maintaining the purity and integrity of the electoral roll, which forms the bedrock of any credible democratic exercise. The exercise is being undertaken not only to ensure that all eligible citizens are included, but also to verify that those enrolled fulfill all the conditions prescribed under the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and are not disqualified from being registered as electors. While the debate should have focused on why such a critical exercise had not been conducted for over two decades, the narrative has instead shifted to questioning its timing—why now—when the real question ought to have been why not earlier. A sense of apprehension is being circulated by certain quarters, suggesting that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) will result in mass-scale disenfranchisement. These concerns are largely premised on the belief that many citizens, owing to illiteracy, migration for work, or poor access to documentation, would be unable to meet the requirements outlined in the Election Commission of India's (ECI) guidelines. It is argued that a significant number of people lack the documents necessary for enumeration and therefore may be excluded from the electoral roll. The Election Commission of India, fully aware that many eligible citizens may not possess conventional documentary proof, adopted a liberal and inclusive approach while framing the guidelines dated 24.06.2025. Intentionally, the list of documents prescribed therein was kept indicative and not exhaustive, precisely to ensure that all legally permissible documents that establish the eligibility conditions under the law could be considered by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO). The underlying objective was to avoid exclusion and to accommodate the diverse socio-economic realities of citizens across the country. However, it must also be understood that the Election Commission, as a constitutional authority, is bound to operate strictly within the framework of law laid down by Parliament. It cannot—by design or discretion—permit reliance on documents that are legally impermissible or explicitly excluded by statutory mandate. Its flexibility is therefore broad, but never lawless. It is also pertinent to mention that from the very first day of notification, the Election Commission, through its field machinery, undertook proactive steps to ensure full coverage and, as a result, the enumeration teams reached 99.8% of electors—a figure that directly rebuts the claim of widespread exclusion. Yet, this is not the only significant outcome of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The exercise also revealed that approximately 22 lakh names on the roll belonged to deceased individuals, 32 lakh were found to be permanently shifted, 4 lakh were untraceable or failed to submit their enumeration forms, and nearly 7 lakh were registered at multiple locations. In total, around 65 lakh electors do not feature in the draft electoral roll. Significantly, about 61 lakh of these were found to be either deceased, permanently relocated, or already enrolled elsewhere—categories that are legally disqualified from being included in the roll. These exclusions are, therefore, not arbitrary but necessary corrections that uphold the legal integrity of the electoral process. As for the remaining 4 lakh electors, despite repeated visits and efforts by enumerators, they were not traceable or did not submit their forms. To address any inadvertent exclusion, including among these 65 lakh names, the Commission has provided an open window for filing claims and objections. The Commission, anticipating the possibility of genuine electors being left out, has instituted a robust remedial mechanism. Any eligible citizen whose name is missing from the draft roll can submit a claim for inclusion until the final publication scheduled for 30th September. This safeguard ensures that the process remains fair and inclusive, without compromising on the legal requirements for eligibility. When initial fears of mass disenfranchisement did not materialize, attention shifted to these figures as supposed evidence of large-scale deletion. However, in line with its guiding principle that 'no eligible elector should be left out,' the Election Commission shared the complete list of such entries with district representatives of recognized political parties, inviting them to verify or trace any individuals whose names they believed had been wrongly deleted. This outreach remains especially relevant for the 4 lakh electors who could not be located during enumeration. Despite this opportunity, no substantial effort or contrary evidence has been produced by any political party to substantiate claims of erroneous deletions. Can this then be termed disenfranchisement? The answer is no. What this instead reveals is that a significant portion of the existing electoral roll included individuals who are deceased, have permanently relocated, or cannot be verified to exist at all. Rather than undermining the democratic process, the Special Intensive Revision has strengthened it by identifying and correcting large-scale inaccuracies. This exercise has not only reaffirmed the Commission's commitment to electoral integrity but has also created an opportunity for stakeholders—including political parties and civil society organizations—to assist in tracing any remaining unverified electors, particularly those who were not found despite field visits. In this crucial final phase, political parties and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should rise above unproductive debate and instead contribute constructively to the process. Rather than casting doubts or hindering the revision effort, they should actively assist in identifying and facilitating the inclusion of any eligible electors who may have been inadvertently left out of the draft roll. They also have a valuable role in helping track the small remaining segment of 4 lakh untraceable electors, ensuring that the door remains open for rightful inclusion where possible. This last-mile exercise is essential to dispel any remaining apprehension regarding disenfranchisement. It is important to clarify that till the publication of the draft roll, no name has been deleted on the ground of non-availability of documents. Even during the scrutiny of the enumeration forms, every possible effort will be made to ensure that no eligible citizen is excluded solely due to lack of documentation. In cases where documents are unavailable, the Election Commission has deployed an additional force of over 2 lakh volunteers, apart from the 1 lakh Booth Level Officers (BLOs), to actively assist such electors in procuring the required documents from relevant government departments. Furthermore, no name shall be deleted without strictly adhering to the three foundational principles of natural justice—issuing a notice, providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and passing a speaking order. Any elector still aggrieved by such deletion is also afforded an opportunity to appeal under a robust two-tier appellate mechanism, thereby ensuring that the process remains both lawful and fair. The Election Commission of India has approached the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral roll with the dual responsibility of inclusion and integrity. While it is bound to ensure that every eligible citizen is rightfully included, it is equally obligated to prevent the entry of ineligible names that can distort the democratic process. The right to vote must be unhindered for those who fulfil the legal conditions, but that same right loses its meaning if the roll is polluted by wrongful entries. But democracy cannot allow those without legal entitlement to occupy the same space in the roll. In ensuring both rightful inclusion and lawful exclusion, the Commission is fulfilling not two competing tasks, but one unified constitutional duty: protecting the sanctity of the franchise. EC is simply doing its job.
Hindustan Times
37 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Vice presidential poll to be held on September 9
The election for the post of Vice President will take place on September 9, the Election Commission of India (ECI) announced on Friday. Vice presidential poll to be held on September 9 According to a press note issued by the poll body, the notification for the 17th Vice Presidential election will be issued on August 9. The last date for filing nominations is August 19, with the scrutiny on August 22, ECI said, adding that the deadline for the withdrawal of candidatures is August 25. The vacancy in the Office of the Vice President arose due to the abrupt resignation by Jagdeep Dhankhar on July 21, citing health grounds. In his resignation letter to President Droupadi Murmu, Dhankhar said, 'To prioritise health care and abide by medical advice, I hereby resign as Vice President of India, effective immediately, in accordance with Article 67(a) of the Constitution.' As per the provisions of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, and the Constitution, the poll body is required to fill the vacancy as soon as possible. The electoral college for the election comprises 788 members of both Houses of Parliament, including 233 elected and 12 nominated members of the Rajya Sabha and 543 elected members of the Lok Sabha. At present, six seats are vacant — five in the Rajya Sabha and one in the Lok Sabha — bringing the current strength of the electoral college to 782. Polling, if necessary, will take place at Room No. F-101, Vasudha, on the first floor of the Parliament building on September 9 from 10am to 5pm. Rajya Sabha Secretary General PC Mody has been appointed as the Returning Officer (RO) for the election, with two Assistant Returning Officers (AROs) to assist him. The poll body reiterated that voting would be conducted by secret ballot and electors must mark their preferences using a special pen provided at the polling booth. 'Voting by using any other pen shall lead to invalidation of the vote at the time of counting,' ECI said. Political parties are prohibited from issuing a whip to their members for this election and any violation of secrecy or improper voting procedure will result in cancellation of the ballot. 'There is no concept of open voting in this election and showing the ballot to anyone under any circumstances is totally prohibited,' the commission said.
Hindustan Times
37 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Former minister Dharamsot's son declared PO in Forest scam-linked PMLA case
An Enforcement Directorate (ED) court in Mohali has declared Harpreet Singh, son of former Punjab forest minister Sadhu Singh Dharamsot, a proclaimed offender in connection with a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court has adjourned the matter for further hearing to August 19. Former minister Dharamsot's son declared PO in Forest scam-linked PMLA case According to the court order issued on July 29, Harpreet failed to appear before the court despite the issuance of a proclamation on March 28. 'The statutory period of 30 days has expired; therefore, the accused is declared a fugitive,' the court noted. It further directed that mandatory intimation be sent to the concerned police station. The court has now sought detailed information on Harpreet's assets so that confiscation proceedings may be initiated under Section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which permits the attachment of a proclaimed offender's property. As part of due process, copies of the proclamation order have been pasted at Harpreet's residence in Ward No. 6, Anya Road, Amloh (Fatehgarh Sahib), at a prominent public location and on the notice board of the court. Meanwhile, Sadhu Singh Dharamsot, also an accused in the case, is currently out on bail. ED's probe stems from two FIRs registered by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act against Dharamsot linked to an alleged forest scam.
