Chandigarh, July 4: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday asked the Punjab government to seek instructions and adjourned the hearing on former cabinet minister Bikram Singh Majithia’s plea challenging his arrest and subsequent remand in a corruption case. The matter will now be heard on July 8.
Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the Punjab government’s counsel to provide an official explanation or clarification regarding the issues raised by Bikram Singh Majithia in his petition — such as the alleged illegal arrest, improper remand, and political vendetta.
Majithia, arrested by the Vigilance Bureau on June 25 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, termed the FIR and his arrest as “patently illegal” and an act of “political witch-hunting” by the ruling dispensation aimed at “harassing a vocal political opponent.”
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya’s Bench issued the directive while taking up the petition filed by Majithia through counsels Sartej Singh Narula, Damanbir Singh Sobti, and Arshdeep Singh Cheema. The petition raises serious constitutional and procedural concerns, alleging that Majithia’s arrest and remand were carried out in violation of legal safeguards and court rulings.
Majithia submitted that he was detained from around 9:00 am to 11:20 am on June 25 without formal arrest, which he said was in “gross violation” of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS). “This illegal custody is evident from video recordings and timing mentioned in the remand order,” the petition stated.
The remand order, issued by a Judicial Magistrate on June 26 granting custody until July 2, was also challenged as “manifestly perverse.” Majithia alleged that the magistrate failed to apply judicial mind, did not examine the case diaries or provide reasons for custody, and ignored the binding rules of the High Court.
“The investigating agency’s remand application lacked urgent or specific grounds, relying instead on broad claims about alleged foreign connections and the need to confront documents or devices,” the petition said. He argued that the vague reasoning hinted at an intention to coerce a confession, in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Further, Majithia pointed to a Supreme Court order dated March 4, which had explicitly denied his custodial interrogation on the same charges. He accused the state of concealing this fact from the magistrate and misrepresenting urgency to secure his remand.
“The abuse of process, disregard for binding precedent, and violation of judicial procedure have not only vitiated the remand order but also infringed on my fundamental rights under Articles 14, 20, and 21,” Majithia submitted.
The petition, while seeking quashing of the remand order, urged the court to issue directions to prevent further misuse of custodial powers and to uphold the right to fair investigation and liberty.
