Described the absence from the parliamentary session of their constitutional rights
Sourah Malik
Chandigarh, Feb 18th February
Punjab News: Manicpal Singh has demanded the need for the Punjab and Haryana High Court for the Punjab and Haryana High Court for participation in Parliamentary Buddh Slass, Punjab and Haryana High Court. Amritspal Singh said in a petition that he was essential in Parliament for commenting the names of the Lok Sabha Secretary. Amritsal Singh said that his absence was violated his constitutional rights.
Amritpal Singh of the organization’s organization is currently closed in the Dadbrugarh prison in the provisions of the organization of the National Security Act to the provisions of the National Security Act to the provisions of the National Security Act (NSA). The petitioner claimed that he was stopped with joining the seat of Parliament so that the Khadur Sahib could be declared empty.
Amritshipal Singh claimed that if he lives in more than 60 days, the seat could be declared empty and the 19 million people of his constituency, but the 19 million people of his constituencies, but the 19 million people of his constituency, but the 19 million people of his constituency, but the 19 million people of his constituency, but the 19 million people of his constituency. Have to have.
Amritspal Singh also sought instructions to allow the officials and ministers of MPs to implement the local sector development plan to the local sector development plan (MLADS). The MPAid scheme allows MPs to recommend development projects based on the needs of the required requirements.
According to the petition, Amritdal had a formally requested the Lok Sabha Speaker on November 30 last year to allow them to join the parliamentary session.
The petition further said that he had already been informed of the absence from parliamentary sessions for 46 days. He made requests to seek the Deputy Commissioner / District Magistrate to join Parliamentary Injilates, but no response was found.
Amritship argued that his absence was not voluntarily but the result of the action of the state, which became the matter of pulling out the outcome. He argued that it is equivalent to the disrespect of Parliament like this, because it prevents a selected representative from fulfilling his legislative duty. The High Court is expected to hearing in the case soon.
