The Punjab and Haryana high court on Thursday directed the Punjab government to ensure the safety of former cricketer and Rajya Sabha MP Harbhajan Singh and his family, while issuing notices to both the state and central governments over the withdrawal of his security cover.
Harbhajan, who was an Aam Aadmi Party Rajya Sabha MP before merging into the Bharatiya Janata Party along with six others on April 24, has challenged the Punjab government's April 25 order withdrawing his security, which earlier included 25 police personnel.
Court's Observations and Directions
Taking note of the seriousness of the matter, a bench led by Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed that the safety of the MP and his family cannot be compromised under any circumstances. The court sought clarification from both governments on whether a fresh threat assessment was conducted prior to the withdrawal of security and what action was taken regarding the alleged mob attack at the petitioner's Jalandhar residence on April 25 and 26. The next hearing is scheduled for May 12.
Petitioner's Allegations
According to the petition, the MP was granted security cover in May 2022 following a formal threat assessment. However, it was abruptly withdrawn on April 25 without any fresh evaluation or prior notice, a move he has termed arbitrary and politically motivated. The plea alleged that soon after the withdrawal, a mob attacked his residence in Jalandhar, vandalised property, and wrote 'gaddar' (traitor) on the walls, reportedly in the presence of police personnel who failed to intervene. The attacks allegedly continued the next day, prompting the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to deploy four CRPF personnel for his protection. Despite this, the state security cover has not been restored, even after representations made to the ADGP (security) and the Jalandhar police commissioner on April 28.
The court's intervention highlights the legal scrutiny over the government's decision-making process in matters of security for public figures, especially in the context of alleged political vendetta. The case also raises questions about the adequacy of threat assessments and the responsibility of law enforcement agencies to protect individuals from mob violence.
