Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Punjab authorities to ensure that Rajya Sabha MP Harbhajan Singh and his family face no physical harm while they are in the state, stepping into a dispute over the withdrawal of his security cover.Justice Jagmohan Bansal issued the interim direction on Thursday while hearing Harbhajan Singh’s petition challenging an April 25 order of the Punjab ADGP, Security, that withdrew protection earlier provided to the cricketer-turned-parliamentarian. The court issued notice of motion to Punjab and other respondents and fixed May 12 for the next hearing.
The order said the respondent must ensure that no physical injury is caused to the petitioner or his family members while they are in Punjab. The direction does not amount to a final ruling on restoration of security, but it places responsibility on the state to prevent harm until the matter is examined further.
Harbhajan Singh, a Rajya Sabha member and one of the best-known public figures from Punjab, has argued that the withdrawal of his cover was carried out without a fresh threat assessment, without prior notice and without giving him an opportunity to be heard. His plea seeks quashing of the security withdrawal order and immediate restoration of protection.
The petition places the timing of the decision at the centre of the controversy. Harbhajan Singh had entered the Rajya Sabha from Punjab on an Aam Aadmi Party ticket and later moved to the Bharatiya Janata Party along with other Upper House members. The security decision followed that political shift, prompting allegations that the withdrawal was punitive rather than threat-based.
His plea also refers to disturbances outside his Jalandhar residence after the security cover was removed. Protesters allegedly gathered near the property, while offensive words were written on walls. These claims have made the case more than a routine security review, raising questions about the state’s duty to protect public representatives facing possible hostility linked to political developments.
Punjab’s stand before the court included the submission that Harbhajan Singh was not residing in Punjab and that an affidavit connected with the petition had been attested in Maharashtra. That argument appears aimed at questioning the urgency and territorial basis of the plea. The court, however, chose to issue an interim protection direction limited to the period when he and his family are physically present in Punjab.
Security cover for public figures is normally determined through threat perception reviews conducted by police and intelligence agencies. Such assessments consider public profile, past threats, law-and-order risks, residence, travel patterns and political exposure. Courts usually avoid substituting their judgment for that of security agencies, but they can intervene when a decision is alleged to be arbitrary, politically motivated or unsupported by procedure.
Harbhajan Singh’s case arrives amid wider scrutiny of security cover granted to politicians, former officials, celebrities and high-risk individuals across states. Governments have periodically withdrawn or downgraded protection for figures they say no longer meet threat thresholds, while affected persons often argue that such changes are abrupt and expose them to avoidable risk. The balance between public expenditure, security necessity and political neutrality remains a recurring legal and administrative concern.
The matter also carries symbolic weight because of Harbhajan Singh’s public profile. A former international cricketer and World Cup winner, he has retained strong visibility in Punjab, sports broadcasting and national politics. His move into parliamentary politics widened his exposure beyond sport, while his change of political alignment added another layer to the security debate.
Punjab Police will now be expected to justify the April 25 decision before the High Court. The state may have to indicate whether any formal threat review preceded the withdrawal, whether central or state inputs were considered, and whether procedural safeguards were followed before the order was issued. Harbhajan Singh’s side is likely to press the argument that a person’s protection should not be altered without objective assessment, particularly when there are signs of public hostility.