Nearly a week after the Punjab and Haryana High Court raised pointed questions over the deployment of 23 Punjab Police personnel in the security cover of Rajya Sabha MP and former India cricketer Harbhajan Singh, Punjab is yet to place on record its affidavit on people enjoying security cover and police personnel officially and unofficially deployed with them.
Taking up the matter on Wednesday, Justice Jagmohan Bansal made it clear that Additional Director-General of Police (Security) would remain present in the court, if the requisite affidavit was not filed by the next date of hearing. The Bench also fixed the case for May 27 after adjourning the hearing “on request”.
The development is significant as the much-awaited affidavit is expected to clarify the sanctioned strength versus actual deployment of security personnel. The case will now come up, along with connected petitions on security cover and threat perception, including one filed by a Zila Parishad former Vice-Chairman. He had approached the High Court through counsel Armaan Saggar seeking protection for himself and his family after alleging threats from a gang.
Justice Bansal had earlier observed that official records prima facie reflected sanction for only eight personnel and 15 police officials had apparently been unofficially attached. The observations came as the Bench ordered a district-wise exercise—Moga to begin with — to ascertain how many people were enjoying security cover and how many police personnel were officially and unofficially deployed with them.
Making it clear that the issue went beyond an individual case, Justice Bansal had then directed the ADGP (Security) and the SSP, Moga, to place detailed affidavits before the court. The Bench, at the same time, had also directed the State to ensure that no physical harm was caused to the petitioners or their families.
“It appears that there are two orders whereby eight police personnel were deputed in the security of petitioner. It, prima facie, shows that respondents have unofficially attached 15 police personnel at the cost of public exchequer,” the court had observed.
Expanding the scope of inquiry beyond the petitioner’s individual security arrangement, Justice Bansal had asserted: “To avoid the aforesaid situation, this court finds it appropriate to select Moga district to ascertain how many persons are having security cover and how many police officials are officially and unofficially attached to those persons.”
In his petition, the MP contended that the impugned order withdrawing his security cover was passed without any fresh threat assessment and without affording him notice or an opportunity of hearing. Harbhajan Singh added he was elected to the Rajya Sabha on April 10, 2022, from the Aam Aadmi Party and was residing in Jalandhar with his family.
He submitted that a day prior to the withdrawal, Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha had announced that he, along with six other MPs, including the petitioner, had left the party. He alleged that his security was then withdrawn without any fresh report regarding threat perception.
