The Punjab government has told the Punjab and Haryana High Court that it will not go ahead with the demolition of advocate Nikhil Saraf’s farmhouse in Mohali district. The assurance came late Friday evening during a hearing before a Division Bench headed by Justice HS Sethi.
The development follows a plea filed by Saraf less than a fortnight ago. In his petition, Saraf alleged that senior officers of the State of Punjab are involved in various scams, including "cash for transfers, cash for getting favourable policies, cash for tenders and such other illegal activities."
High Court’s Directive on ED Communications
Acting on Saraf’s plea, the High Court had earlier directed the counsel representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to place before it communications allegedly sent to the Punjab DGP in the matter. The court’s directive was part of its response to the allegations raised by the advocate.
The matter was brought to the High Court’s notice by the Bar Association, which highlighted the issue for judicial scrutiny. The government’s undertaking not to raze the farmhouse now puts a stop to any immediate demolition action while the case proceeds.
What This Means for the Case
The Punjab government’s commitment not to demolish the farmhouse is a key step in the ongoing legal proceedings. It signals that the state will not take unilateral action against Saraf’s property while the court examines his allegations of corruption against senior officers.
For Saraf, this undertaking offers temporary relief. For the broader case, it keeps the focus on the serious accusations he has raised — accusations that the High Court is now actively reviewing, including by seeking ED communications related to the Punjab DGP.
Our Take: A Measured Step, But Questions Remain
In our view, the Punjab government’s decision to hold off on demolition is a sensible one. Razing a property while a related legal plea is pending would have looked heavy-handed and could have prejudiced the proceedings.
That said, this is only a pause, not a resolution. The core issue — Saraf’s allegations of scams involving senior state officers — remains open. The High Court’s move to involve the ED suggests it is taking those claims seriously. Readers should watch for what the ED communications reveal and how the court responds next.
To put it plainly, this undertaking protects one man’s farmhouse for now. But the bigger test is whether the allegations behind the plea get a fair and transparent hearing.