Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar

P&H HC Directs Restoration of Z+ Security for Navjot Singh Sidhu, Citing Unattended Apprehensions

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has directed the restoration of Z+ security for prominent political figure Navjot Singh Sidhu. The court issued a writ petition, highlighting that the security cover had been reduced to Y+ without any prior notice to the petitioner.

Navjot Singh Sidhu, a former minister and member of the All India Congress Committee, had been granted Z+ security based on his political status and perceived threat. However, upon completing a one-year sentence in a road rage case, his security cover was downgraded. The court noted that there had been no fresh assessment of his threat perception and ordered the authorities to take corrective measures, including the provision of suitable security.

Emphasizing the dynamic nature of security issues, the court highlighted the need for periodic evaluation by the competent authority. It further underlined that downgrading security could potentially encourage anti-social elements to take drastic actions. The court directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner's concerns, mentioned in the writ petition, and to take appropriate action based on the threat perception disclosed.

This ruling comes after a detailed threat perception report was submitted by the Special Director General of Police, Internal Security, Punjab, and a report from the Central Agency stating the absence of specific threats against the petitioner at present. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining confidentiality of the threat perception report due to potential repercussions and ramifications.

The decision, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh, aligns with a previous order in a related case. The court allowed the petitioner to provide additional inputs to support their claims, and the competent authority has been given one month to act upon the court's directives.

Date of Decision: 01.06.2023

Navjot Singh Sidhu vs State of Punjab and others

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Navjot-Vs-State-1-June-23-PHHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News