Not Appropriate To Restrain Vigilance Inquiry, Says Punjab & Haryana High Court While Dismissing MLA Sukhpal Singh Khaira's Plea in DA Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to interfere with a vigilance inquiry initiated against Congress MLA Sukhpal Singh Khaira in a disproportionate assets (DA) case, observing that it would not be appropriate to restrain the Vigilance Bureau from conducting its inquiry at this stage.

The Court dismissed Khaira's petition, which sought to quash the vigilance inquiry initiated on account of political vendetta and malicious witch hunt unleashed against him by the ruling party in Punjab. The plea alleged that the inquiry violated the Supreme Court's directions in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya said, "Court does not think it appropriate to restrain the Vigilance from gathering information by way of an inquiry at its own level into the alleged disproportionate assets of the petitioner."

Senior counsel appearing for Khaira argued that as a three-time legislator and opposition leader in Punjab, he was being targeted by the ruling establishment through multiple false cases. The petitioner submitted that after the Supreme Court quashed his summoning as an additional accused in an NDPS case in February 2023, he was again implicated through a “subsequent investigation” and arrested in September 2023. Though he is currently on bail, he expressed apprehension of further false implication through the present vigilance action.

It was contended that the vigilance inquiry, continuing since February 2024, was illegal and amounted to harassment, violating the time limits for preliminary inquiries as laid down in Lalita Kumari (supra). Counsel emphasized that the Vigilance Bureau was seeking property and bank details of the petitioner and his family through various official communications to revenue and banking authorities, which, he claimed, infringed his rights.

The Court noted that Khaira was not an accused in the communications exchanged between vigilance officers and other departments, nor had any FIR been registered against him regarding the alleged disproportionate assets. The bench further observed that the vigilance letters were inter-departmental in nature and were part of the officials' duty to gather information.

“It remains undisputed that the petitioner is not an accused in the inter-departmental communications and it is not clear as to how the same have come to his notice. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that by way of these letters or the pending inquiry any right of his has been infringed,” the Court said.

Rejecting the applicability of Lalita Kumari to the present case, the Court clarified that the Supreme Court's directions on time-bound preliminary inquiries were intended to protect the rights of the accused and complainants when such inquiries are initiated to determine whether a cognizable offence is made out. Here, the vigilance communication was only for collecting information, not for registering an FIR.

Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with

Mr. P. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Title: SUKHPAL SINGH KHAIRA v. STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 419

Click here to read order