Abhay Chautala's Z-plus security plea: HC issues notice to Centre for Dec 16

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday issued notice of motion to the Union of India and other respondents for December 16 on Abhay Singh Chautala’s plea seeking Z-plus or Z-category central security cover in view of alleged threats from international gangsters.

Alleging threats from international gangsters after the murder of INLD state president and former MLA Nafe Singh Rathi, senior INLD leader Chautala approached the High Court seeking Z-plus or Z-category security cover from a central agency such as the CRPF.

The petitioner said repeated, credible threats from international and national gangsters had been communicated to him, but the State “failed to take any action whatsoever” on his representations.

The petitioner alleged State’s inaction despite repeated requests. He submitted that no committee was constituted, no assessment was undertaken and no interim protection was extended even though “the threat perception is grave, imminent and continues to escalate.”

Chautala—several-time MLA, former Leader of Opposition and grandson of former Deputy Prime Minister Chaudhary Devi Lal— argued that the risk to his life intensified after he publicly demanded arrests in Rathi’s killing and pressed for a CBI probe monitored by the High Court.

The plea added that he raised the issue inside the Haryana Vidhan Sabha during the Budget session on February 27, 2024, and followed it up with a letter to the Chief Minister on February 28, warning that the assassination required independent investigation.

The writ petition, filed through advocate Sandeep Goyat, referred to Chautala’s sustained political profile since 2000, his repeated electoral victories from Ellenabad, and his public campaigns on issues including farmers’ protests and the Rathi murder.

It was added that his “unwavering and vocal stance” against organised crime has exposed him and his family to “heightened danger.”

Arguing that the right to life under Article 21 demanded affirmative protection by the State, the petitioner sought a direction to the authorities to grant him round-the-clock central security of the highest category.

He has also stated that despite “specific, repeated, and urgent” representations, the home authorities “did not even consider the request,” leaving him with no option but to invoke the court’s writ jurisdiction.