The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently allowed family members of former Punjab Chief Minister (CM) Beant Singh, who was killed in a bomb blast, to retain a government house in Chandigarh despite holding no official position [Court on its own motion v UT Chandigarh].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice (CJ) Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor rejected an application challenging the continued occupation of the house by Beant Singh's son Tej Parkash Singh.
The Court took into account the security threats faced by Singh's family, which were flagged by the Chandigarh administration.
The Court held that the Supreme Court’s directions against former public functionaries retaining government accommodation could not, by themselves, prevent the family from continuing to occupy the house in view of the administration’s assessment of the family’s security needs.
Hence, the case is distinguishable from those covered by the Supreme Court's directions, the Court ruled.
"This being a case of its own kind, and clearly distinguishable, would not fall within clutches of the directions issued by the apex Court," the High Court said.
Beant Singh, a Congress leader who served as Punjab Chief Minister from 1992 until his assassination on August 31, 1995, was killed in a bomb attack outside the Punjab Secretariat in Chandigarh. The attack also killed several others. The government house was allotted to his family in the aftermath of his assassination on security grounds.
The Chandigarh administration had previously cancelled the allotment in June 2020, citing the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment in Lok Prahari v State of Uttar Pradesh and the applicable accommodation rules. It had also initiated proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which provides for eviction from unauthorised occupation of public premises.
However, after Beant Singh's son Tej Parkash Singh made a representation seeking continuation of the accommodation, the administration reconsidered the matter in light of intelligence inputs and a security assessment.
The administration told the High Court that a joint security committee had assessed the threat to the family as grave and persistent. It submitted that the family continued to face security threats from Khalistani extremist groups, gangsters and Pakistan-backed organisations.
The administration also cited recent grenade attacks and terror-related incidents in Chandigarh and Punjab, threat calls, hostile social media campaigns and intelligence inputs, indicating continuing threats to the family.
Additionally, the committee found the existing security arrangements satisfactory and the house strategically suitable for the family’s protection. It recommended additional CCTV cameras and stronger surveillance.
The Chandigarh administration subsequently approached the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on June 1 this year seeking approval to allot the house to the family on security grounds. In an affidavit filed before the High Court on October 6, the administration stated that the request was still pending consideration before the Ministry.
The application before the High Court was filed by one Kulwant Singh, who sought to intervene in the proceedings and implead Tej Parkash Singh. He argued that the continued occupation of the house was contrary to the spirit of the Supreme Court’s 2018 directions concerning government accommodation for former public functionaries.
However, the Court rejected the plea.
"Such general directions cannot, however, be relied upon by the applicant to contend that Tej Parkash Singh cannot be allowed to continue in the accommodation in question, particularly when the UT, Chandigarh Administration, upon consideration of the threat perception and the inputs received from the intelligence agencies, has taken a conscious decision that his continued occupation of the Government accommodation is warranted."
Separately, in the same PIL, the Court directed the Chief Engineer of the Chandigarh administration to file a personal affidavit explaining why necessary repairs had not been carried out in government houses allotted to High Court employees.
It directed that the repairs be undertaken on a priority basis and that the Court be informed promptly.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 26.
Senior Advocate RS Bains and advocate Utsav Singh Bains represented the applicant (Proposed Intervener).
Additional Standing Counsel Abhhinav Sood, Additional Advocate General Punjab Samdisha Kaur and advocates Sayyam Garg and Mayank Aggarwal appeared on behalf of the respondents.
[Read Order]