Click the Play button to listen to article

The Punjab Government has approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the Centre's refusal of political clearance for a visit to France by Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, Chief Secretary K.A.P. Sinha and Principal Secretary to the CM- Ravi Bhagat. The delegation planned to visit from October 15 to 21, 2026 to promote trade.

It is argued that the Ministry of External Affairs simply marked the application “DENIED” on its e-Pol Clearance portal, without giving any reason or hearing the State. It argues that the Centre has turned a mechanism “meant for coordination into a veto over the executive functions of the State.”

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya heard the matter today and sought response from the Union Government.

Senior Advocate Ad AG Chanchal Singla appearing for the Punjab Government submitted that Centre is discriminating Punjab (ruling party AAP) because recently Haryana CM (from BJP) had also sought permission to visit abroad and he was allowed.

According to the petition, the visit was planned around SIAL Paris 2026, an international food trade exhibition held once every two years. It is scheduled from October 17 to 21 at Paris Nord Villepinte.

MARKFED, the State's apex cooperative marketing federation, was allotted a stall in the India Pavilion of the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), a statutory body under the Union Ministry of Commerce. APEDA confirmed the stall on September 3, 2026. The petition says MARKFED would bear the entire cost of the visit.

The State's Department of Personnel gave cadre clearance to the two officers on September 2, 2026. The Department of Cooperation wrote to the MEA on September 3 and September 8 seeking urgent sanction for the visit.

On September 9, 36 days before the planned departure, the State filed an online application for political clearance. The application described the visit as “Promotion of Trade” and bilateral in nature. It stated that the Indian Mission had been consulted and gave detailed reasons why the Mission could not represent the State's interests in its place.

The proposed itinerary included meetings with the Punjabi and Indian diaspora, the opening of the trade fair, a visit to MARKFED's stall, meetings with trade associations, chambers of commerce, importers and investors, and a meeting with the Indian Ambassador to France.

The petition says the MEA neither sought any clarification nor pointed out any deficiency, and did not reply to the State's letters. The application was simply shown as “DENIED” on the portal.

Grounds Of Challenge

The plea raises the following grounds:

The State relies on Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner and Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan. It argues that a decision affecting a party must disclose reasons and cannot be supported by fresh reasons added later in a reply.

No law behind political clearance. The petition says the requirement of political clearance does not come from any Act of Parliament. It rests only on Office Memoranda and instructions issued by the Cabinet Secretariat and the MEA. According to the petition, these instructions do not lay down any criteria for granting or refusing clearance, set no time limit, do not require reasons, and provide no appeal or review.

Relying on Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, the State argues that executive action which prejudices a person must be backed by legislative authority. It also argues that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21.

The State argues that promoting the produce of its farmers and its apex cooperative falls within its executive power under Article 162. It points to the entries in the State List covering agriculture, industries, trade and commerce within the State, production and distribution of goods, and cooperative societies.

The petition argues that Article 73 limits the Union's executive power, and that the Union List entries on foreign affairs and on trade and commerce with foreign countries are not attracted. The State says it is not entering into any treaty, conducting foreign affairs or regulating imports and exports.

The plea relies on Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's Constituent Assembly speech of November 25, 1949, S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, and Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2023). It contends that the refusal strikes at the federal structure, which is a basic feature of the Constitution. It argues that if the Union must respect constitutional boundaries even with the NCT of Delhi, the principle applies “with greater force” to a full-fledged State like Punjab.

Citing Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the State argues that every relevant consideration favoured granting clearance. It says the respondents were approached six weeks in advance, against the three weeks required under the MEA's own instructions of 2019 and 2023. The Indian Mission had been consulted, all internal approvals were in place, and the stall was allotted under a Central body's pavilion.

The State also contends that using a power meant to protect foreign policy interests to stop a State from marketing its farmers' produce is a colourable exercise of power.

The matter is now kept for Tomorrow (16 October)

Ad AG Chanchal Singla appeared for the Punjab Government.

ASG Satya Pal Jain appeared for Union.

Tags: