Signing you in

A bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya also observed that that it cannot be said that the petitioner’s security cover was “withdrawn abruptly” due to his leaving the party.

“The decision to withdraw (the security cover) had been taken by the Review Committee much earlier, which is not denied. 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,” Justice Dahiya observed.

The bench further noted that the Rajya Sabha MP has already been provided ‘Y+’ category security through CRPF by the Ministry of Home Affairs. It also observed that the Punjab government has undertaken to take care of his security through local area deployment whenever he is in the State.”In view thereof, no further direction needs to be issued and the petition stands disposed of,” the bench ordered.

The bench was hearing a petition filed by the cricketer-turned politician challenging the withdrawal of his security cover through a Punjab government order dated April 25, 2026. In his petition, he alleged that the withdrawal was arbitrary and carried out without any fresh threat assessment or prior notice. He had further claimed that the security cover granted to him in May 2022 was withdrawn shortly after he announced his exit from the AAP, alleging political vendetta behind the move.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Harpreet S Multani submitted that Harbhajan Singh had been provided security cover comprising around 25 Punjab Police personnel while he was a member of the AAP.

It was contended that after political differences, he left the party on April 24, 2026, and “the next day the security cover was withdrawn…leaving him vulnerable.” The counsel further argued that there were protests outside his residence in Jalandhar and posters branding him a “gaddar/traitor” were pasted outside his house, showing that “the threat persisted” and that “there was no justification to withdraw the cover overnight.”

Opposing the plea, the Punjab government submitted that the withdrawal followed a threat assessment conducted by the Security Review Committee on March 3, 2026, much before Harbhajan Singh quit the ruling party.

Referring to the affidavit filed by the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Security), the Punjab government submitted that “review of threat perception of all protectees…was conducted on 03.03.2026… and no specific threat was reported by any of participating wings regarding the petitioner.” It further stated that the petitioner’s engagements within Punjab were “very limited” and that he “predominantly stays outside State of Punjab”.

Accordingly, the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar, was directed to provide security through local deployment while the existing security personnel were withdrawn. The affidavit also stated that, under the applicable security protocol, security deployment beyond Punjab’s territorial jurisdiction can ordinarily be granted only for 72 hours.

The State further submitted that Harbhajan Singh had already been provided “highly specialised ‘Y+’ category security cover through the CRPF vide Ministry of Home Affairs order dated 04.05.2026” and that whenever he visits Punjab, “his security concerns will be taken care of, depending upon the threat assessment, by local area deployment as may be required.”

After hearing the arguments, the bench concluded that decision to withdraw the security cover had been taken much before his exit from the AAP and hence cannot be termed as abrupt or retaliatory measure. Holding that no further direction was warranted, the bench disposed of the petition.