Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Withdrawal of Harbhajan Singh’s Security Cover; Says Threat Assessment, Not AAP Exit, Led to Decision

Case Name: Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab & Others

Date of Judgment: 09 July 2026

Citation: CWP-13471-2026

Bench: Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that withdrawal of the petitioner’s Punjab Police security cover was not arbitrary or politically motivated, as it was based upon an earlier threat assessment conducted by the Security Review Committee before the petitioner resigned from his political party. The Court further held that the petitioner’s security concerns were adequately addressed since he had already been granted Y+ category security by the CRPF, and the State Government had undertaken to provide local security deployment whenever he visited Punjab. Consequently, no further judicial intervention was warranted.

Summary: The petitioner, a Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament from Punjab, challenged the order dated 25 April 2026 withdrawing his Punjab Police security cover. He contended that the withdrawal occurred immediately after he left the ruling political party and therefore was arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, and unsupported by any fresh threat assessment. He also relied upon protests outside his residence and posters branding him a “traitor” to demonstrate continuing threats to his safety.

The State opposed the petition by producing the Security Review Committee’s assessment dated 03 March 2026, which had already concluded that no specific threat perception existed requiring continuation of the existing security arrangement. The State further explained that the petitioner primarily resided outside Punjab, making permanent State security deployment unnecessary. Additionally, the Ministry of Home Affairs had already granted him Y+ category security through the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The State also assured the Court that local police deployment would be provided whenever the petitioner visited Punjab.

Accepting the State’s stand, the High Court held that the withdrawal decision had been taken prior to the petitioner’s resignation from the political party and therefore could not be attributed to political vendetta. The Court further observed that peaceful protests and defamatory posters, by themselves, did not automatically establish a genuine threat to life warranting continued security cover. Since adequate alternative security arrangements already existed through the CRPF and local deployment, no writ could be issued. The petition was accordingly disposed of.

Decision: The High Court declined to interfere with the withdrawal of Punjab Police security cover, holding that the withdrawal was based on a prior Security Review Committee assessment and further no evidence established arbitrary or politically motivated action. It was held that peaceful protests alone did not establish an immediate threat to life as the petitioner already enjoyed CRPF Y+ security.