Protests Or Being Branded A 'Traitor' Do Not Establish Threat To Life Ipso Facto: Punjab & Haryana High Court On Security Cover

"The protests outside his residence or his being branded a traitor, would not establish threat to his life and liberty ipso facto." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that mere protests outside a person's residence or being labeled a "traitor" do not automatically establish a threat to their life and liberty.

A single-judge bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya observed this while refusing to direct the State of Punjab to restore the state security cover of a sitting Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament.

The petitioner, an elected Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) from Punjab, had been provided a security cover of about twenty-five police personnel while he was a member of the ruling Aam Aadmi Party. He resigned from the party on April 24, 2026, citing political differences. His state security cover was withdrawn the very next day, prompting him to approach the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to set aside the withdrawal order and a writ of mandamus to restore his security.

The primary question before the court was whether the sudden withdrawal of the petitioner's state security cover was arbitrary and required restoration due to an alleged continuous threat to his life following his political defection. The court was also called upon to determine whether political protests and hostility against the petitioner necessitated specialized state security deployment.

No Abrupt Withdrawal Due To Political Defection

The High Court noted the State's submission that the withdrawal of the security cover was not an abrupt, politically motivated decision triggered by the petitioner leaving the ruling party. The court observed that the decision to withdraw the security personnel had already been taken by the Security Review Committee (SRC) much earlier, following a threat assessment conducted on March 3, 2026. The State had successfully demonstrated that no specific threat was reported by any participating wings regarding the petitioner during this prior review.

Protests Do Not Automatically Imply Threat

Addressing the petitioner's contention that the protests outside his Jalandhar residence and posters labelling him a "gaddar" (traitor) left him vulnerable, the court found such circumstances insufficient to mandate continuous state security. The bench emphasised that political backlash or peaceful protests do not inherently translate into a physical danger requiring armed police protection.

"The protests outside his residence or his being branded a traitor, would not establish threat to his life and liberty ipso facto. The protest was not violent either."

Territorial Jurisdiction And Central Security Cover

The court also recorded that the petitioner's engagements within the State of Punjab were very limited and that he predominantly resided outside the state. Citing applicable security protocols, the State had clarified that security deployment beyond Punjab's territorial jurisdiction could ordinarily be granted only for 72 hours. Furthermore, the court took significant note of the fact that the petitioner had already been extended a highly specialised 'Y+' category security cover through the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Local Area Deployment Sufficient

Satisfied that the petitioner's security concerns were already being addressed by the central authorities, the court found no justification to interfere with the State's withdrawal order. The bench highlighted the State Government's solemn undertaking that local area deployment would be provided to take care of the petitioner's security whenever he visited Punjab, depending upon the prevailing threat assessment.

In view of the petitioner already possessing 'Y+' central security and the State's assurance regarding local deployment during his visits, the court concluded that no further directions were necessary. The petition was accordingly disposed of without granting the prayer to restore the permanent state security cover.

Date of Decision: 09 July 2026