The Supreme Court on Wednesday reprimanded the Punjab government for attempting to distance itself from assurances made by its legal representatives in court. 

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh criticised Punjab’s Chief Secretary, KAP Sinha, for failing to provide clear answers regarding the government’s stance on implementing the Punjab Privately Managed Aided Colleges Pension Scheme, 1996. The case involves demands for extending pension benefits to certain employees. While the government had earlier repealed the scheme with retrospective effect, it had assured the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the petitioners would still receive benefits.

The Supreme Court had previously summoned Chief Secretary Sinha, and during Wednesday’s hearing, the bench accused the government of misleading the court.

“Mr Sinha, is it not correct that you repeatedly gave undertakings to the court? And now you claim that the state is not bound by these statements? What kind of submission is this? Now, we will issue a contempt notice,” Justice Oka remarked.

The bench further demanded accountability: “Now tell us, who should the contempt notice be issued against? Repeatedly, false undertakings and affidavits have been submitted. Should we issue the notice to you, or will you name the responsible officer?”

Sinha requested time to file an affidavit, but the court dismissed the request, stating that its prior orders were already clear.

The bench expressed frustration over the government’s attempt to disown statements made by its own Advocate General. “This is the height of it! Repeatedly, assurances are given, and now we are shamelessly told that these statements, made by the Advocate General, do not bind the state? This is a most shameless act by the government,” the court stated.

In response, the court issued a firm directive: “From now on, we will not record statements made by any counsel representing this state. Every time a submission is made, the concerned officer will have to file an affidavit.”

Punjab’s Advocate General, Gurminder Singh, attempted to intervene, but the bench continued addressing Chief Secretary Sinha directly.

“We will issue contempt first. Let the officers go to jail, and then we will hear you. What is going on? Mr Sinha, are you justifying this claim that statements made by the Advocate General do not represent the state?” the court queried.

Sinha agreed with the court but hesitated to provide a clear answer on whether the petitioners would receive pension benefits. The court then demanded a straightforward ‘yes or no’ response.

“We are asking you a simple question. Either say yes or no. Are you granting the benefit or not?” Justice Oka asked.

Sinha evaded a direct answer, stating that he could not go against the legislature’s decision. The court, however, remained firm: “If you say no, we will record it and issue a contempt notice. Are you unable to answer?”

 After prolonged questioning, Sinha finally stated he would comply with the court’s decision. Justice Oka clarified that the court was not compelling him but needed a clear answer.

During the tense exchange, the court also took exception to certain hand gestures made by Sinha, prompting an apology from the Punjab Advocate General. Singh requested a week’s time to resolve the issue, but the court proceeded with its order.

“First, we issue a notice to Surinder Kaul, Deputy Director, Department of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, to show cause why action should not be taken against him for submitting a false affidavit before this court,” the bench ruled.

The court also issued a contempt show cause notice to Chief Secretary Sinha: “Despite repeated undertakings given to the High Court, compliance has not been made. We issue a show cause notice to KAP Sinha, requiring him to explain why action under the Contempt of Courts Act (both civil and criminal) should not be initiated against him. If he believes another officer is responsible, he may submit an affidavit naming the responsible individuals so that action can be taken against them.”

As the proceedings continued, the Punjab Advocate General acknowledged the gravity of the situation and admitted that the government’s attempt to disown its counsel’s statement was unfortunate.

The bench, however, did not relent. “You are representing a powerful state that is now denying the correctness of its own statements. You are powerful!” Justice Oka remarked sarcastically.

Singh then assured the court of corrective action: “Take it from me… I will do something positive.”