Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Rajya Sabha MP's Plea Against Security Cover Withdrawal After AAP Exit
Punjab & Haryana High Court found no abrupt withdrawal of security from Rajya Sabha MP Harbhajan Singh after his departure from AAP, noting a prior threat review conducted weeks earlier and a fresh Y+ CRPF cover granted by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Harbhajan Singh, a Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament from Punjab, left the Aam Aadmi Party on 24 April 2026. The following day, the Additional Director General of Police, Security, Punjab, issued Order No. 10788-98/CRSW/D-2 dated 25 April 2026, withdrawing the State police security cover that had comprised approximately twenty-five personnel. Singh filed CWP-13471-2026 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash that order and a writ of mandamus to restore the cover. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, sitting singly, disposed of the petition on 9 July 2026, finding that the withdrawal was not a consequence of the MP's party exit and that his security needs were already being addressed through a separate central arrangement.
What the Petitioner Argued
Singh's counsel contended that the timing of the withdrawal — one day after he left the ruling party — was no coincidence. The security cover had been in place while he was an AAP member, and its removal the very next day left him exposed. Counsel pointed to protests outside his residence in Jalandhar and posters labelling him gaddar (traitor), exhibited as Annexure P-5, as evidence that a threat to his life and liberty continued to exist. The core legal argument was that no fresh threat assessment had been carried out before passing the withdrawal order and that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before doing so.
The petitioner's position was, in essence, that the State had used an administrative security decision as a political instrument, punishing him for crossing the floor.
The State's Defence: A March Review Preceded the April Order
The State contested the narrative through an affidavit dated 20 May 2026, sworn by the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Security, Punjab. The affidavit disclosed that the Security Review Committee had conducted a review of threat perception for all protectees in the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar area on 3 March 2026 — nearly seven weeks before Singh left the AAP. At that review, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar, and members of the SRC participated. According to paragraph 6 of the affidavit, “no specific threat was reported by any of participating wings regarding the petitioner.”
The State further pointed out that Singh's engagements outside Jalandhar but within Punjab were found to be very limited, and that he predominantly stayed outside the State. Under the applicable security protocol, deployment of State police personnel beyond Punjab's territorial jurisdiction can ordinarily be granted only for 72 hours. Given these findings, the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar, was directed to provide security through local deployment, and the dedicated security personnel were accordingly withdrawn. The impugned order of 25 April 2026 was passed in that context.
On the central government side, Mr Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, appeared through video conferencing and informed the court that the Ministry of Home Affairs had on 4 May 2026 extended Y+ category security to Singh through the Central Reserve Police Force. The State submitted that whenever Singh visits Punjab, his security will be addressed through local area deployment based on a fresh threat assessment as required.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Dahiya examined the competing narratives and concluded that the sequence of events did not support the petitioner's case of a politically motivated, abrupt withdrawal.
The court accepted that the Review Committee's decision predated the political development. The review of 3 March 2026 was not disputed by the petitioner, and the fact that the resulting order was formally issued on 25 April 2026 did not convert the earlier administrative assessment into a retaliatory act.
On the protests outside Singh's Jalandhar residence and the “traitor” posters, the court held that these events did not ipso facto establish a threat to his life and liberty. The protests were not violent. Visual evidence of public discontent, without more, was not treated as a basis for compelling the State to restore a dedicated police detail.
The court also weighed the fact that the petitioner now holds Y+ category CRPF security granted by the central government. This category of cover is a specialised central deployment, and its existence addressed the concern that Singh had been left entirely without protection. The State's undertaking to provide local deployment on visits to Punjab further satisfied the court that no ongoing security vacuum existed.
In these circumstances, the court found that no further direction was required from the High Court. The petition was not dismissed outright on preliminary grounds but was disposed of after considering the merits, with the court declining to interfere with the State's security deployment decision.
Outcome
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya disposed of CWP-13471-2026 on 9 July 2026 without issuing any further directions. The impugned order dated 25 April 2026 withdrawing the State police security cover was not set aside. The court recorded that the petitioner's security concerns were being addressed through the Y+ CRPF cover granted by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 4 May 2026, and through the State's commitment to provide local deployment whenever he is present in Punjab. The judgment is marked as a reasoned and reportable order.