CHANDIGARH: In a day of intense legal showdowns, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday witnessed sharp exchanges over two high-profile political cases. While the Court pulled up the Punjab government for playing “hide-and-seek” regarding the alleged criminal cases against dissident Rajya Sabha MP Sandeep Pathak, it simultaneously declined to grant any immediate relief to Punjab Cabinet Minister Sanjeev Arora in a ₹100-crore ED money-laundering case.
A Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu presided over both significant matters, issuing a strict one-week ultimatum to the state government in Pathak’s case, while deferring Arora’s arrest challenge to next week.
1. The Sandeep Pathak Case: “Why the Hesitation to Disclose?”
The High Court expressed strong displeasure over the Punjab government’s continuous evasion regarding whether any First Information Report (FIR) has been officially registered against Rajya Sabha MP Sandeep Pathak. Pathak, who recently defected from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), had approached the court seeking clarity following widespread media reports that two criminal cases had been secretly filed against him.
State Accused of Playing ‘Hide-and-Seek’
Representing Pathak, Senior Advocate R.S. Rai along with advocates Arjun Sheoran and Pranhita Singh argued that the state was deliberately keeping the lawmaker in the dark.
“You are supposed to upload an FIR within 24 hours of registration under Supreme Court guidelines. Here, the State is playing hide-and-seek. If a case is registered, a citizen has a fundamental right to know so they can seek legal remedies,” Rai argued.
When the state’s counsel, Additional Advocate General Chanchal K. Singla, maintained that he had “no instructions” and questioned the maintainability of the petition on grounds of being “speculative,” the Bench lost its patience.
The Court’s Observation
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu remarked:
“I fail to understand what the hesitation is in answering the query as to whether any offence has been registered or not registered. If an FIR exists, state so; if it does not, state that as well.”
Current Status & Protection Extended
-
Interim Relief: The High Court extended its interim protection for Sandeep Pathak until the next hearing. The Punjab Police remains strictly prohibited from taking any coercive action or arresting him without prior, explicit permission from the High Court.
-
Next Hearing: The matter has been adjourned to May 22, by which date the Punjab government must provide a definitive answer.
2. The Sanjeev Arora Case: Arrest Memo Alleged as ‘Pre-Typed and Fabricated’
In a parallel high-stakes hearing, the High Court refused to grant any immediate interim relief to Punjab Industries and Commerce Minister Sanjeev Arora, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on May 9 in connection with an alleged ₹100-crore GST fraud-linked money laundering case.
Arora’s counsel, Senior Advocate Puneet Bali, launched a scathing attack on the ED’s procedures, labelling the arrest an “unlawful formality” and a blatant violation of Section 19 statutory safeguards under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Major Procedural Anomalies Raised by Defence:
-
Fabricated Arrest Timing: The defence alleged that Arora was physically taken into custody at 7:15 AM from his Chandigarh residence, but the ED officially recorded the arrest at 4:00 PM, producing him before a Gurugram special court late at night at 11:20 PM.
-
Pre-Planned Grounds of Arrest: Bali questioned how the ED generated a highly detailed, 17-page “grounds of arrest” document within just 35 minutes of concluding Arora’s statement, arguing the document was clearly pre-typed and predetermined.
-
Conflict of Interest: The defence pointed out that the very same investigating officer who acted as the complainant in the prior Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) proceedings executed the PMLA arrest, acting as a “judge in his own cause.”
Current Status
The ED vehemently opposed the submissions, terming the allegations factually incorrect. Noting that the arguments had consumed considerable time over three days and that the ED’s detailed response was yet to be fully heard, the High Court declined to grant immediate release or stay the remand.
The Bench adjourned the matter to Monday afternoon (May 18) for further arguments, leaving the Cabinet Minister in custody for now.
Legal Summary at a Glance
| Leader / Politician | Political Affiliation | Primary Legal Grievance | High Court Interim Protection? | Next Hearing Date |
| Sandeep Pathak | BJP (Ex-AAP MP) | State hiding the existence/details of suspected FIRs. | YES (Protected against arrest/coercive steps) | May 22, 2026 |
| Sanjeev Arora | AAP (Cabinet Minister) | Challenging ED arrest & remand under PMLA as illegal. | NO (Remains in ED custody; no immediate relief) | May 18, 2026 |
Leave a Reply