Harbhajan cries AAP vendetta over security withdrawal, HC pulls up Punjab govt over excess police cover
Chandigarh: Hearing a plea by Rajya Sabha MP Harbhajan Singh challenging the withdrawal of his security cover, the Punjab and Haryana High Court Wednesday criticised the Punjab government for deploying an excessive number of police personnel with the former cricketer when he was a protectee.
Harbhajan had moved the high court last month alleging that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Punjab withdrew his security detail after he and six other Rajya Sabha MPs switched allegiance to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Apart from Harbhajan, two other Rajya Sabha MPS who merged with the BJP—Rajinder Gupta, chairman emeritus of the Trident Group; and Sandeep Pathak—have also approached the high court seeking relief from action initiated against them by the Bhagwant Mann-led AAP government in Punjab.
During the resumed hearing of his plea Tuesday, Justice Jagmohan Bansal pointed out that Harbhajan was entitled to a security cover comprising eight police personnel, but his security detail had 23 police personnel.
The high court has now sought an explanation from the Punjab government.
“It shows that the respondents [Punjab government] have unofficially attached 15 police personnel at the cost of public exchequer,” read the order. The high court has also ordered Punjab government to give details of the number of security personnel deployed “officially and unofficially” in Harbhajan’s native district Moga.
The high court while referring to an earlier order in a related matter has asked the additional director general of police (security) to furnish details of the criteria followed by Punjab government in extending security cover to protectees.
Further, the high court has also asked the ADGP to share how many persons within the state and otherwise have been extended security cover by Punjab Police, along with the number of personnel attached with each protectee.
The case will be heard next on 20 May.
Also Read: Rape accused Punjab AAP MLA, who made dramatic escape from police custody, nabbed after 6 months
‘Political vendetta’
Political confrontation in Punjab began after a dramatic split within the AAP in late April 2026 when seven of its Rajya Sabha MPs shifted allegiance to the BJP.
Soon after, allegations of “political vendetta” began surfacing in petitions filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Harbhajan was the first to move court. He alleged that the withdrawal of his security cover exposed him and his family to danger, particularly in view of protests by AAP workers opposing his decision. The withdrawal of his security cover by the Punjab government, he said, was arbitrary and politically motivated.
During the hearing, the high court took note of the apprehensions and directed the Punjab government to ensure that “no physical injury” was caused to him or his family while they remained in the state. Justice Jagmohan Bansal issued notice to the state government and sought its response in the matter.
A second significant matter involved Rajinder Gupta, Rajya Sabha MP and chairman emeritus of Trident Group. Shortly after Gupta’s switch to the BJP, officials of the Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB) conducted inspections at Trident’s Dhaula unit in Barnala district. The inspections followed protests by local AAP workers and complaints alleging environmental violations and groundwater contamination around the unit. PPCB collected water and air samples from the site. Gupta’s company moved the high court alleging that the inspections and possible punitive action were politically driven.
During the proceedings, the high court observed that there appeared to be a “palpable apprehension” of political vendetta. The bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry directed that no coercive action be taken against the company without first granting it a reasonable opportunity of 30 days to rectify any deficiencies.
The court also indicated that any adverse action should follow due process and comply with environmental laws rather than being driven by political considerations.
Another case was that of Sandeep Pathak who approached the high court alleging that FIRs had been registered against him in Punjab without copies being supplied to him. The high court restricted the Punjab government from taking any coercive action against Pathak without the court’s permission.
What made the unfolding legal battle politically striking is that the same broad argument of “political vendetta” is now being raised from the opposite side of the political divide as well.
Sanjeev Arora, a senior AAP leader and serving minister in the Mann government, has also approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court alleging political vendetta. However, unlike Harbhajan Singh and Rajinder Gupta, who accused the Punjab government of victimisation after joining the BJP, Arora has alleged vendetta by agencies functioning under the Union government led by the BJP.
Arora was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) following searches at places linked to his businesses. Challenging both his arrest and the remand order passed by a special court in Gurugram, Arora moved the high court contending that the action was selective and politically motivated. In a notable legal and political parallel, senior advocate Puneet Bali, appearing for Arora, specifically referred to earlier high court proceedings involving Rajinder Gupta and Sandeep Pathak and sought similar judicial protection on the principle of parity. Arora’s plea argued that if the high court could intervene where there was an apprehension of political vendetta by the Punjab government, the same principle should apply where a state minister alleges misuse of central investigative agencies by the Union government. The high ourt adjourned the matter for further hearing while examining the allegations of procedural violations and political targeting raised by the minister’s counsel.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: Breather for RS MP Rajinder Gupta who moved HC over Punjab pollution board raid after his switch to BJP
