Punjab HC Flags Safety Concerns After Ex-Cricketer Harbhajan Singh’s Security Cut

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stepped into a politically sensitive controversy involving Harbhajan Singh the former Indian cricket star known for his role in India’s 2007 and 2011 World Cup victories directing the Punjab Government to ensure the safety of him and his family after his security cover was abruptly withdrawn. The interim order, passed by Justice Jagmohan Bansal , comes amid rising tensions following a major political realignment in the state.

The court’s directive follows a petition filed by Harbhajan Singh, who recently quit the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) along with six other Rajya Sabha MPs. In his plea, the former cricketer alleged that the withdrawal of his security by the Punjab Police was arbitrary, unjustified, and politically motivated , carried out without any fresh threat assessment or prior notice.

The controversy is rooted in the April 24 political shake-up, when seven AAP MPs defected to the BJP, significantly altering the party’s strength in the Rajya Sabha and triggering sharp reactions in Punjab. Soon after, security cover was withdrawn for several defecting MPs, raising questions over whether administrative decisions were influenced by politics .

Matters escalated when protests broke out outside the residences of the defecting leaders. According to the petition, Harbhajan Singh’s home in Jalandhar was attacked by a mob on April 25 and 26, with walls defaced using derogatory slogans such as “traitor.” He further alleged that local police personnel were present during the incident but failed to intervene, effectively becoming “mute spectators.”

Following the withdrawal of state security, the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was deployed outside his residence, highlighting a growing Centre–State divide over threat perception and responsibility. While the state appears to downplay the risk, central intervention suggests otherwise.

In court, Harbhajan Singh argued that the decision violated his fundamental right to life under Article 21 , as well as principles of natural justice , given the absence of procedural safeguards. He emphasized that as a sitting MP, he remains exposed to continuous security threats in the current volatile political climate.

The Punjab government is expected to defend its decision by citing periodic reviews of security arrangements. However, legal experts note that any reduction must be backed by a credible threat assessment and implemented in a phased manner.

The High Court’s intervention signals concern over law and order lapses and the possible misuse of administrative power . With the next hearing scheduled for May 12, the case is set to test the limits of state discretion in security matters .

Beyond the immediate dispute, the episode reflects broader concerns about political polarization , governance accountability , and the role of institutions in safeguarding individual rights.