HS Phoolka says Capt Amarinder govt not defending sacrilege report in HC

AAP leader says AG’s absence during hearing vindicates his claim that the Congress only wants to take political mileage, no action on report
Chandigarh : A day after the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed proceedings on Justice Ranjit Singh (retd) Commissiom report against two former SSPs and a SHO, Aam Aadmi Party leader HS Phoolka accused the Punjab government of not defending the panel.
Phoolka, who has deferred his move to resign from state assembly till the next date of hearing on September 20, said the absence of Punjab advocate general Atul Nanda or his legal team during Thursday’s hearing exposed the real intentions of the Captain Amarinder Singh government.
“It is not incompetence. There is either collusion between the government and those indicted by the commission or it was all a sham, right from speeches of ministers in the state assembly to the formation of special investigation team (SIT), which will have to probe the incidents of sacrilege at Bargari and police firing at Kotkapura and Behbal Kalan in 2015 from the scratch. It has vindicated my stand that the Congress just wants to take political mileage out of the emotive issue but no action on the report,” Phoolka said while addressing a press conference here.
AG Nanda hit back saying that unlike the Delhi High Court, no advance notice is issued by the Punjab and Haryana HC. “The notice has been issued on Thursday and we will defend the case in accordance with the law,” Nanda said.
But Phoolka said the Punjab government through media reports knew on which grounds then Moga SSP (now retired) Charanjit Sharma along with two other cops had challenged the report. “All the law officers of Punjab had to do was show that the commission had served notices to the accused as per the Commission of Inquiry Act. And the panel had not exceeded its jurisdiction as it had only made recommendations and it is up to the government to accept them,” Phoolka said.
On his resignation, Phoolka said after the HC stay on proceedings on report, his quitting can be construed as influencing the case through pressure or even contempt of court. “So, I have deferred my decision to quit till the next date of hearing,” he said.