Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Punjab & Haryana High Court: In a writ petition challenging the withdrawal of Punjab Police security cover, the Single Judge Bench of Tribhuvan Dahiya, J., disposed of the petition, holding that the withdrawal of the petitioner’s security cover was based on an earlier threat assessment conducted by the Security Review Committee and not on his decision to leave the ruling political party. The Court observed that peaceful protests and posters branding the petitioner as a “traitor” did not, by themselves, establish any threat to his life and liberty, particularly when he had already been granted “Y+” category security by the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and the State had undertaken to provide local security deployment whenever required.
The present writ petition arose out of the withdrawal of the Punjab Police security cover provided to Harbhajan Singh, Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament from Punjab. Challenging the order dated 25 April 2026, he contended that the decision was taken a day after he left the Aam Aadmi Party owing to political differences and without any fresh threat assessment or an opportunity of hearing. He further relied upon protests outside his residence and posters branding him a “gaddar” (traitor) to contend that his security concerns continued to persist.
The State maintained that the withdrawal was based on a prior review conducted by the Security Review Committee on 3 March 2026, much before the petitioner’s resignation from the party.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s security cover could not be said to have been withdrawn abruptly on account of his exit from the political party, as the decision had already been taken by the Security Review Committee much prior. The Court further observed:
“The protests outside his residence or his being branded a traitor, would not establish threat to his life and liberty ipso facto. The protest was not violent either.”
The Court noted that the petitioner had already been provided “Y+” category security by the CRPF and that the State Government had undertaken to ensure his security through local area deployment whenever he visited Punjab. Thus, the Court found no ground to issue further directions and disposed of the writ petition.
[Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, CWP-13471-2026, decided on 9-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Harpreet S. Multani, Harmanpreet S. Mander, Ramaninder S. Jagal, Kritika, and Amardeep Singh, Advocates.
For the respondent: Chanchal K. Singla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, Vikas Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, Medha Diwan and Kavita Joshi, Advocates, and Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, Saigeeta Srivastava, Senior Panel Counsel
