Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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