DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Careers Advertise with us Classifieds
Gen Z Speak Up !
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Ensure no harm to Harbhajan Singh, family, Punjab and Haryana High Court tells Punjab

Harbhajan had challenged, among other things, the April 25 order passed by the Punjab ADGP (Security) withdrawing his security cover

  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Harbhajan Singh. File photo
Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday directed Punjab to ensure no physical harm was caused to cricketer-turned Rajya Sabha MP Harbhajan Singh and his family while they were in the state.

Advertisement

The interim direction came as Justice Jagmohan Bansal’s Bench issued notice of motion to the state, among others, on his petition.

Advertisement

He had challenged, among other things, the April 25 order passed by the Punjab ADGP (Security) withdrawing his security cover.

Advertisement

In his petition placed before Justice Bansal’s Bench, the petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without any fresh threat assessment and without affording him notice or an opportunity of hearing. He also sought directions for immediate restoration of his security cover.

In his plea, Harbhajan said he was elected to the Rajya Sabha on April 10, 2022, from the Aam Aadmi Party and was residing in Jalandhar with family. He submitted that a day prior to the withdrawal, Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha had made an announcement that he along with six other MP, including the petitioner, had left the party.

Advertisement

He alleged that the security was then withdrawn without any fresh report regarding threat perception. Claiming that the order was passed in a “vindictive manner”, the petitioner added that a mob reached his residence, painted the outer walls with the word “traitor (gaddar)”, and tried to break the front gate. He stated that he was in Mumbai for a personal engagement when he received a call from his brother-in-law informing him about the incident.

Punjab Advocate-General Maninderjit Bedi, on the other hand, said the petitioner had been provided security cover by the Centre. It was further contended that the petitioner was, in any case, usually not residing in Punjab.

After hearing the rival submissions, the Bench issued notice of motion and fixed the matter for May 12. The case will be taken up along with a connected petition.

Read what others can’t with The Tribune Premium

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Classifieds tlbr_img2 Videos tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 E-Paper tlbr_img5 Shorts