Chandigarh, Dec. 12 -- The Punjab government on Thursday reiterated in the high court that Khadoor Sahib MP and Waris Punjab De chief Amritpal Singh should not be allowed parole to attend the winter session of Parliament. Appearing for Punjab, senior advocate Anupam Gupta, advancing his argument on his previous statement that his one speech could create problems in Punjab, said that once in Parliament, Amritpal can speak whatever he wants to, and even the Lok Sabha speaker can only regulate. "Moreover, for any rebellious or mutinous speech, if made, he can't be proceeded against due to privileges accorded to a Parliamentarian by the Constitution. What they say is only subject to the discipline of the rules of Parliament, the good sense of the members, and the control of proceedings by the speaker. So, neither the speaker can control his speech. Nor can the Supreme Court or the high court dictate to him what should be said," Gupta further argued during the hearing on the plea filed by Amritpal in which he has challenged the Punjab government's decision to reject his parole. Gupta further said that parole to Amritpal is neither his constitutional nor fundamental right. Referring to K Anandan Nambiar's judgment of 1951 regarding the parliamentary privileges of a legislator under preventing detention, Gupta said that no special status can be claimed by the MP other than that of an ordinary citizen. In his plea, Amritpal had argued that the state government misused its discretion under Section 15 of the National Security Act (NSA) by issuing a 'cryptic' rejection order without connecting the decision to any specific material. The parole could be structured with strict conditions. The petitioner is ready to undertake that he would abide by the conditions imposed, the jailed MP added. Responding to these submissions, Gupta said that even if an order is passed by a court and he is allowed parole, no action can be taken against him for his actions or speeches inside the Parliament. Gupta also referred to the grounds of detention taken by the government in which his "involvement" in activities "prejudicial to the security of the state" was alleged, and further, he was termed a "grave and imminent danger to national security." Gupta said that the detention order had also recorded his "indulgence with anti-national elements, notorious and dreaded gangsters and terrorists with the intent and object to physically eliminate persons who in his perception had the potential to publicly expose his acts and misdeeds"....